dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwanantsd 
invasion ofporccllll prim 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 05 001 5 1195 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: AuG 2 9 2036 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Self-represented 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All materials have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 001 51195 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition. The matter is now on appeal 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a dental practice. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as an accountant and to extend her 
classification 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. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition on the ground that the petitioner did not have an approved Labor Condition 
Application (Form ETA 9035) for the proffered position at the time its Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker 
(Form 1-129) was filed to continue the beneficiary's previously approved employment without change and to 
extend his stay in the United States. 
As specified in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(l): 
Before filing a petition for H-1B classification in a specialty occupation, the petitioner shall 
obtain a certification from the Department of Labor that it has filed a labor condition 
application in the occupational specialty in which the alien(s) will be employed. 
The same applies to petitions for an extension of stay in H-1B status. As specified in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(lS)(ii)(B)(l): 
The request for extension must be accompanied by either a new or a photocopy of the prior 
certification from the Department of Labor that the petitioner continues to have on file a labor 
condition application valid for the period of time requested for the occupation. 
The record shows that the petitioner filed the instant Form 1-129 extension petition on October 8, 2004, 
requesting H-1B classification for the beneficiary in the accountant position for a three-year employment 
period from October 1, 2004 to October 1, 2007. The petition was not accompanied by a Labor Condition 
Application (LCA) for the proffered position certified by the Department of Labor (DOL). On January 7, 
2005, the director sent a request for evidence (RFE) to the petitioner which requested the submission, among 
other things, of a certified LCA. The petitioner responded to the RFE with a photocopy of the previously 
certified LCA bearing an approval date of September 15, 2001 and a validity period of October 1, 2001 to 
October 1, 2004. Since this LCA had already expired, it did not satisfy regulatory requirements. As the 
petitioner did not provide a valid LCA, the director denied the petition. 
On appeal the petitioner claims it was unaware that a new LCA had to be submitted with its extension 
petition. The petitioner submits a new LCA, certified by DOL on April 25, 2005, with a validity period of 
April 25, 2005 to September 30, 2007. The new LCA also fails to satisfy regulatory requirements because it 
was not certified by DOL before the instant H-1B extension petition was filed on October 8, 2004. Thus, the 
LCA does not comply with 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(lS)(ii)(B)(l). 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility for 
classification as a nonirnmigrant worker employed in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 
lOl(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act. 
WAC 05 001 51195 
Page 3 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof in these proceedings. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. The 
petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the AAO will not disturb the director's decision denying 
the petition. 
This dismissal is without prejudice to the petitioner's filing of a new petition accompanied by the proper 
documentation and requisite fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.