dismissed H-1B Case: Education

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 244 54168 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: AU6 0 7 2006 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED ' 
-. 
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 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 244 54168 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Adrmnistrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a school system that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a teacher. The petitioner endeavors to 
classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 9 101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the petitioner did not submit an approved labor condition application. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an approved labor condition application. 
The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her 
discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that 
clarifies whether eligbility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. 
See 8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line 
of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2@)(14). 
On November 19, 2004, the director sent a request to the petitioner for additional evidence, including an 
approved labor condition application. 
- 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have submitted 
the documents in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need 
not and does not consider the sufficiency of the previously requested evidence that is now submitted for the 
first time on appeal. 
The AAO notes further that the labor condition application on appeal was certified after the filing date of the 
petition. The regulations require that the labor condition application must be certified prior to the filing of the 
petition. 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2@)(4)(iii)(B)(I). As the labor condition application was certified after the filing of 
the petition, the petition must be denied. 
The burden of proof in this proceeding rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.