dismissed H-1B Case: Education

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invdsion of pffsooal 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: SRC 04 167 50 100 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JuL 1 7 2006 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section IOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
SRC 04 167 50100 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the Texas Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a healthcare facility that seeks to employ the beneficiary as an adult education teacher and to 
classify her as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section lOl(a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner failed to establish that its proposed position 
was a specialty occupation. 
On January 24, 2005, the petitioner submitted a Form I-290B (Notice of Appeal) without a brief or evidence 
and marked the box at section 2, indicating that it was sending a brief and/or evidence to the AAO within 30 
days. The AAO did not receive a brief or any additional evidence in this case. 
An officer to whom an appeal is made shall summarily dismiss the appeal if the party concerned fails to 
specifically identie any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the original decision. 8 C.F.R. 
tj 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The Notice of Appeal simply states the following: 
The Service Center erred in finding that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation. 
The petitioner did not specie any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's decision. As 
the petitioner presents no additional evidence on appeal to overcome the decision, the appeal will be summarily 
dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. tj 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. tj 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.