dismissed H-1B Case: Software Engineering

MATTER OF D-J-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 29,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
.. senior software engineer" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-lB 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish that the Petitioner would engage the Beneficiary in an employer­
employee relationship as a United States employer. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(A). 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The Petitioner submitted a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. Although the Petitioner 
marked Box l(b) in Part 3 of the Form I-290B to indicate that a brief and/or additional evidence 
would be submitted within 30 days, we have not received a brief and/or additional evidence as of the 
date of this notice. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as presently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: ''An officer to whom an appeal 
is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically 
any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact for the appeal.'' 
The Petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as 
a basis for the appeal. As noted, the Petitioner did not provide a brief or additional evidence in 
support of the appeal. Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide with its appeal a separate statement 
regarding the basis of the appeal, as instructed at Part 4 of the Form I-290B. Here, the Petitioner has 
made no reference or objection to the specific findings set forth in the Director's decision. 
Therefore, consistent with 8 C.P.R.§ 103.3(a)(l)(v), the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
Matter of D-J-, Inc. 
(BIA 2013). Inasmuch as the Petitioner has not specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of 
law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the Petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter ofD-J-, Inc., ID# 18029 (AAO Apr. 29, 2016) 
2