dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

US. Department of Homeland Security 
20MassAve.,N.W.,Rm. A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 04 266 53250 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the service center denied the nonirnrnigrant visa petition and the matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal shall be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a non-profit organization that provides consulting, brokerage, and financial services for the 
public broadcast industry. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a financial analyst. The director denied the 
petition on the basis that the proffered position did not meet the definition of a specialty occupation. 
The petitioner submitted a timely Form I-290B on December 2, 2004 and indicated that a brief andlor additional 
evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. As of this date, however, the AAO has not received 
any additional evidence into the record. Therefore, the record is 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. tj 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On the Form I-290B, the petitioner states that the director erred in finding that the proposed duties were not so 
specialized and complex as to require a bachelor's degree; that experience in the radio industry, rather than a 
bachelor's degree in business administration or a related field, is the minimum requirement for the offered 
position; and that the petitioner needed to show that it had required services of a financial analyst in the past. The 
petitioner Mher sates that the director failed to adequately consider the supporting evidence. 
The AAO finds that the petitioner's assertions are general in nature and fail to identify specifically the director's 
erroneous conclusions of law or statements of fact in denying the petition on the ground that the offered position 
fails to qualify as a specialty occupation. As neither the petitioner nor counsel presents additional evidence on 
appeal to overcome the decision of the director, 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 dismissed.