dismissed H-1B Case: Dentistry

U.S. Department oEHome8and Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave K.W.. Wm. A3C42 
Washington, DC 20529 
,?F i"" 
FILE: WAC 04 197 53234 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 $$ &&%3 Obb 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Work& Pursuant to Section POl(a)(H)(i)(b) of the I~migration 
and Nationality 'Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 B lOB(a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Th~s is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. ihal documents have been returned lo 
the office that originally decided yoear case. Any further inquiry rnust be made to that office. 
Robert 3". Wiernann, Director 
AdKinistrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 197 53234 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center dlrector denied the nonlrnmlgant vnsa petntion ard the matter ns now 
before the Adrnin~stratrve Appeals Office (MO) on appeal The appeal will be sm-snanly dism~ssed. 
The petitioner is a dentist office that employs the beneficiary as a dental researcherloral pathologist, as 
au'ihorized by a previously approved petition to employ the beneficiary as an B-PB nonimigrant worker in a 
specialty occupatioin pursuant to section BOB(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1 10 1 (a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). In order to continue this employment beyond the period approved in the initial 
petition; the petitioner endeavors to continue the beneficiary's H-1B classificatior: and extend her stay. The 
director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner had failed to establish that the proffered position 
meets the definition of a specialty occupation as set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(i%)(iii)(A). 
The petitioner submitted a Fom 4-290B (Notice of Appeal) and elected to not submit a brief or evidence. Tlne 
only infomation that the petitioner submits about the basis of the ap2eal is ths statement at section 3 of the Fom 
1-290B: 
We conten[d] that all matters raased by the U.S. c~tlzenship and ~rr~nngration swnces nn thns 
not~ce of nntent to deny was more than s~afficnently dealt with, m the letter submntted m response 
by [the petntnoner] on 10/04/2004. Please refer to that letter accordirgly. 
As the referenced letter is the pet~tioner's October 4. 2004 reply to the director's notlce of antent to day the 
petlbon, acd slnce ths letter predates the director's declsnon, nssued on November 18, 2004, ~t specn5es no legal 
or factual errors iza that decnsnm. 
T'e petitioner fails to specify how the director made any erroxous conclusion of law or statement of fact in 
denyng the petition. As the petitioner presents no additional evidence on appeal to oveycome the decision of the 
director, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(~)~ 
The M0 notes that the petition is for an extension of previously approved employme~t. Each no:aimmigrznt 
petitio~ is a sepa;ate proceeding with a separate record. See 8 C.F.R. 4 T03.8($). h making a determination 
of statutory eligibility, CIS is limited to the information contained in the record of proceedirg. See 8 C.F.R. 
5 403.2(b)(16)(ii). The AAO is not required to approve appricatiocs or petitions where eligibility has not 
been dernonsbated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Pwfatter of 
Clzzwch Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Corm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that 
CIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding yrecedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd v. Mo~ztgorne~y, 
825 F.2d 1084, 1030 (6th Cir. 19879, cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
The burden of proof in thns proceeding rests soleiy with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
The yetitimer has not sustained that burden. 
OlRDER: The appeal is dismissed.