dismissed H-1B Case: Herbal Medicine

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COW @"i 
\ FILE: SRC 04 252 52418 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: fE% 2 1 m6 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 1 Ol(a)(l 5)(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 
SRC 04 252 5241 8 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director 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 retailer/wholesaler of herbal medicine. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a herbal medicine 
specialist, and endeavors to classify her as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 
101 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b). 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. The director determined 
that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the petition was denied. 
On appeal, counsel states that he will file a brief andtor additional information within 30 days in support of the 
appeal. The appeal was filed on August 29,2005. To date, no brief or additional information has been filed. The 
record is, therefore, deemed complete. The only basis stated for the appeal were statements made on the 
Form I-290B Notice of Appeal to the effect that that " . . . The Service Center erred in finding that the position of 
herbal medicine specialist is not a specialty occupation. . . .", and that the Service Center based its decision on the 
beneficiary's credentials "as dispositive of the requirements of the position." As previously stated, the director 
denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. The petitioner simply states that 
the director erred, but does not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact upon 
which the appeal is based. The appellant must do more than simply ask for an appeal and state that the decision 
appealed from is incorrect. It must clearly demonstrate the basis for the appeal. This, the appellant has failed to 
do. As such, the appeal must be dismissed. 
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.