dismissed H-1B

dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Software Development

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet procedural requirements. Although the petitioner indicated on the appeal form that a brief or additional evidence would be submitted, they failed to do so, thereby not identifying a specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact from the original decision.

Criteria Discussed

Failure To Identify Specific Error Of Law Or Fact

View Full Decision Text

MATTER OF 0- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG.21,2017 
PETITION: FORMI-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a "software development and consulting" company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "design engineer" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification tor specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. Upon review, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned 
fails to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact tor the appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The Petitioner did not provide a statement in support of the appeal that specifically identities an 
erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed. On the Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner stated that a brief or additional evidence would be submitted within 
30 days of the April 5, 2017, filing date. However, we have not received anything further from the 
Petitioner to date. Because the Petitioner has not identified a specific, erroneous conclusion of law 
or statement of fact in the Director's decision below, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: ·The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter ofO- Inc., ID# 623026 (AAO Aug. 21, 2017)

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.