dismissed H-1B Case: Dentistry

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
Invasion of pesod privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
FILE: WAC 04 032 52978 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: J(UG 0 4 2006 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 fwther inquiry must be made to that office. 
,A RE~ficcy 
Administrative App s Office 
WAC 04 032 52978 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition by decision dated 
February 26, 2004. The matter was then appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). By decision 
dated May 9,2005, the AAO withdrew the director's decision and found that the proffered position qualified as a 
specialty occupation. The matter was then remanded to the director to determine whether the beneficiary was 
qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. The petitioner is a dental practice and seeks to employ 
the beneficiary (as a medical research assistant) in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). On appeal, the AAO 
found that the beneficiary would be engaged in the practice of dentistry, and remanded the petition for a 
determination of whether the beneficiary was licensed to perform services as a dentist. The director's 
decision will be affirmed. The petition will be denied. 
The director denied the petition on remand and certified his decision to the AAO for review. The petitioner 
did not submit additional evidence to the AAO subsequent to the director's certification. 
Upon review, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not overcome the director's decision on certification. The 
burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The director's May 23,2006 decision is affirmed. The petition is denied.