dismissed H-1B Case: Business Management

<.
ick.Iltifyingdatadeletedto
Iftvenl clearly.unwarranted
invasionof personal priVl1C\
PUBucOlpy
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Mass. Ave.,N.W:, Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE:
O '
LIN 04 241 50626 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: .DEC '\) 42006
INRE:
PETITION:
Petitioner:
Beneficiary: .
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(h) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS :
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.
Robert P. Wiemann , Chief
Adm inistrative Appeals Office
\
www.uscts.gov
LIN 04 241 50626
Pag~ 2 ·
DISCUSSION: · The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before
the Administrative AppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed.
The petitioner is a coffee wholesale and distribution company. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as an assistant
operations manager, and endeavors to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant
. to section 101 (a)(15)(H)(i)(b)'ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)~) .
As stated in 8 CF.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. The director determined
that the proffered position did not qualify as a specialty occupation. Accordingly , the petition was denied.
On appeal, the petitioner indicated on the Form I-290B that a brief would be filed within 30 days supporting the
appeal: To date, no brief has been filed and the record is deemed complete. The petitioner states on the Form
I-290B that it disagrees with the director's decision. The petitioner did not identify any erroneous conclusion of
law or statement of fact upon which the appeal is based . The appellant must do more than simply file an appeal.
It must clearly demonstrate the basis for the appeal. This, the appellant has failed to do . As such, the appeal must
be dismissed :
The petitioner also requested an oral argument before theAAO. The regulations provide that the requesting party
must explain in writing why oral argument is necessary. Furthermore, Citizenship and Immigration Services
(CIS) has the sole authority to grant or deny a request for oral argument and will grant argument only in cases
involving unique factors or issues oflaw that carmot be adequately addressed in writing. See 8 CF.R. § 103.3(b).
In this instance, the petitioner has identified no unique factors or issues of law to be resolved. The written record
of proceedings fully represents the facts and issues in this case. Consequently , the request for oral argument is
denied.
The burden of proof in this proceeding rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8U.S.C § 1361.
The petitioner has not sustained that burden.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.