dismissed H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
identify in.; 6- :- lcleterl to 
prevent ciea s,, .in warran&d 
invasion ofpersonal privacy 
U. S. Citizenship 
and ImInigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
y FILE: D% 
WAC 02 268 50128 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 2 8 a@ 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 10 l(a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been retumed to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
WAC 04 268 50128 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sunmarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a software development and outsourcing company that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
software engineer. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty 
occupation pursuant to section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
4 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). The director denied the petition because the petitioner did not establish that the 
beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
Counsel submitted a timely Form I-290B on February 24, 2004 and indicated that he would be submitting a 
separate brief or evidence within 30 days. On April 19,2006, the AAO sent counsel a fax requesting a copy 
of the brief or evidence that had been submitted. Counsel did not reply. Therefore, the record is complete. 
On September 9, 2003, the director requested the petitioner to submit a copy of the beneficiary's school 
transcripts and a foreign educational credentials evaluation. On November 19, 2003, counsel responded and 
requested a 60-day extension of time to file a response to the request for evidence due to the beneficiary's travel 
schedule. Counsel stated that he would submit the response by February 2, 2004. There is no provision in the 
regulations for an extension of time to file a response to a request for evidence. The regulations state, "Whe 
applicant shall be given 12 weeks to respond to a request for evidence. Additional time may not be granted." 8 
C.F.R. 4 103.2(8). Therefore, on January 24,2004, the director denied the petition. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner could not respond to the director's request for evidence within the 
allotted time, but that the petitioner had "obtained the documents requested and need only to have them translated 
into English and Evaluate the level of education of the Beneficiary." No evidence was ever submitted. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to 
identifl specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. 
8 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On the Form I-290B, counsel fails to specify how the director made any erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact in denying the petition. As neither counsel nor the petitioner present any additional argument or evidence 
on appeal to overcome the decision of the director, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 
C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The burden of proof in ths proceeding rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.