dismissed H-1B Case: Dry Cleaning Services

~deatifyhg data deleted to 
prevent unwamted 
invmh d personal priv8~y 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 03 256 50021 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: JUL 0 5 2006 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 lOl(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 further inquiry must be made to that office. 
ert P. 
P 
V 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 256 50021 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the AAO. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner provides dry cleaning services. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a district manager. 
Accordingly the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant pursuant to section 
101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
On November 17, 2004, the director denied the petition determining that the record did not establish that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On December 20, 2004, the Vermont Service Center received a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, indicating 
that a brief andlor additional evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. Careful review of the 
record reveals no subsequent submission of a brief or evidence; all of the petitioner's documentation in the 
record predates the issuance of the notice of decision. Accordingly, the record is considered complete. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Counsel's statement on the Form I-290B reads: 
The Center Director ignored substantial evidence in the record as to the specialized nature of 
the underlying position involved in this petition. 
The center director [sic] ignored substantial evidence regarding the Beneficiary's experience 
and the Department of Homeland Security's own regulations regarding the eligibility of the 
Beneficiary to undertake work in the specialty occupation and the equivalence of his work. 
Counsel's assertion on appeal is insufficient as a basis for the appeal. The unsupported assertions of counsel do 
not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 
19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Counsel fails to 
specify how the director's decision included an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact when denying the 
petition. Counsel does not address any of the director's findings or determinations regarding the evidence 
submitted. As neither the petitioner nor counsel presents additional evidence or argument on appeal sufficient to 
overcome the decision of the director, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The burden of proof in this proceeding rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed. The petition is denied