dismissed H-1B Case: Food Production Management

Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTERFILE:
identifyingdata deleted to
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
EAC 05 153 50146
PUBLIC COpy
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
·····S··i.,' '.li~l!\i;~ 'Z·,',·"".·.·'.·..·.·' ·" .Jr
W
· . ).'l "
\ .
-:~,'~ , . ' , .. .'
A.~'.) ) ~
·"':i.',....,'. .' " ..
'''1<.
j\JN 2 ~ 1001
Date:
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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.
hifV\-- I-
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
EAC 05 153 50146
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 restaurant business that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a food production manager.
The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant
to section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101
(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The director denied the petition on the basis that the proffered position did not meet the
definition of a specialty occupation.
Counsel submitted a timely Form 1-290B on March 20, 2006 and indicated that a brief and/or 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.
§ 103.3(a)(l)(v).
On the Form 1-290B, counsel fails to specify how the director made any erroneous conclusion of law or statement
of fact in denying the petition. 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.
§ 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 dismissed.