dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21180208 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 17, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(HXi)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 (a)(15XH)(iXb). 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. The Applicant subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, but the 
Director dismissed the motions. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the 
burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 2 91 of the Act; 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de 
nova. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we 
will dismiss the appeal. 
As the initial matter , we note that our review on appeal is generally limited to the bases within the 
underlying adverse decision . As a result, we consider whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that 
the Director improperly dismissed the motion to reopen and reconsider. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l )(v) states that an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the concerned party does not 
specifically identify any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact for the appeal. The Director 
dismissed the motions finding the Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate the filing met the 
requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. On appeal, the Petitioner does not 
address those bases , and instead of addressing the Director's findings within the motion decision, their 
appellate arguments are oriented towards the Director's petition denial that predated the motion 
decision. As such, the Petitioner has not provided a proper basis for this appeal. 
Further, because the most recent decision was related to the motions and not to the petition filing, 
when the Petitioner did not contest any issue within the Director's motion decision, it abandoned its 
claims relating to those issues. E.g. , Matter a/Zhang , 27 I&N Dec. 569, 569 n.2 (BIA 2019) (finding 
that issues not appealed are deemed as abandoned); see also Mungongo v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 531, 
534-35 (7th Cir. 2007) ( concluding that where a filing party fails to address the issues within the 
underlying decision, they have effectively waived those issues on appeal). 
Here, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's specific findings contained within the decision on 
their motions, and offers no substantive basis for filing the appeal. As such, we must summarily 
dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
2