dismissed H-1B Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 00 105 50997 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 1 8 2006 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)( lS)(A)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 1 (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 hrther inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 00 105 50997 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director initially approved the nonimmigrant visa petition. Upon subsequent review 
of the record, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR), and ultimately did revoke, approval 
of the petition. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) remanded a subsequent appeal to the director 
for entry of a new decision, and the director certified his decision to the AAO for review. The director's 
decision will be affirmed. The petition's approval will be revoked. 
The petitioner is a printed circuit board manufacturer seeking to employ the beneficiary as a production 
manager. The petitioner, therefore, endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonirnmigrant worker in a 
specialty occupation pursuant to section 10 l(a)( 1 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains (I) the Form 1-129 and supporting documentation, filed 
on February 24, 2000; (2) the director's June 9, 2000 request for evidence; (3) the petitioner's July 29, 2000 
response to the director's request and supporting documentation; (4) the director's approval of the petition, 
dated August 24, 2000; (5) the director's April 3,2002 notice of intent to revoke the petition (NOIR); (6) the 
petitioner's May 2, 2002 response to the NOR; (7) the director's July 23, 2002 revocation; (8) the Form 
I-290B and supporting documentation, filed on August 16,2002; (9) the AAO's December 18,2003 remand 
of the petition; (10) the director's August 6,2004 notice of certification; and (1 1) counsel's August 16, 2004 
response to the notice of certification. The AAO reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing its 
decision. 
After obtaining the H-1B approval notice, the beneficiary appeared at the United States consulate in New 
Delhi, India to obtain the visa. The interviewing officer determined that the beneficiary's work 
experience letter was fraudulent, and stated that he had admitted to working illegally in the United States 
between August 1999 and October 2000. The interviewing officer relayed these concerns to the service 
center, and the director, finding that these issues constituted good and sufficient cause, issued the NOIR 
on April 3,2002. 
The NOIR articulated the concerns of the interviewing officer and provided the petitioner 30 days during 
which to address these concerns. The director revoked the petition's approval on July 23, 2002, on the 
basis that the petitioner had not responded to the NOIR. The AAO remanded the petition to the director 
on December 18, 2003, after having been presented with evidence that confirmed the petitioner had in 
fact responded to the NOlR within the allotted timeframe. 
As such, the director considered the evidence and issued a new decision. On August 6, 2004, he denied 
the petition and certified his decision to the AAO for review. The petitioner submitted a timely brief and 
supporting documentation, which the AAO received on August 27, 2004. 
Counsel submits a brief in response to the director's notice of certification. A close inspection of the brief 
finds that it is virtually identical to the petitioner's May 2, 2002 response to the director's NOIR, which 
the director found insufficient to overcome the issues raised in his NOR. Counsel is in essence 
resubmitting evidence and arbaments already in the record, this time for the AAO's consideration. Upon 
review, the petitioner has failed to overcome the director's revocation. 
Counsel asserts that the beneficiary says he did not admit to the consular officer that he had worked 
illegally in the United States between August 1999 and October 2000, which contradicts the testimony of 
the consular official in the embassy letter. The petitioner repeats this assertion. However, the AAO notes 
that there is no affidavit or other primary evidence directly from the beneficiary making such an assertion. 
The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Ohnigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
LIN 00 105 50997 
Page 3 
533, 534 (BIA 1988); Mutter of Laz4rean0, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of'Rumirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
In stating that the beneficiary did not admit to working illegally in the United States between August 1999 
and October 2000, counsel and the petitioner contest the testimony of the consular official. Counsel also 
states that the beneficiary advised the petitioner that the work experience letter was "genuine and 
authentic," again contradicting the express testimony of the consular official. The petitioner again repeats 
counsel's assertion. Counsel asserts that "[ilt would appear that the [elmbassy had not any investigation" 
but offers no evidence to document this claim. No evidence, such as testimony from the beneficiary, the 
beneficiary's former employer, or other documentary evidence, is provided to contest the consular 
official's statements. 
Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Mutter ufSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Crafi of Califbrniu, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(h)(l l)(B)(iii)(S), the director may revoke an H-1B petition if approval of the 
petition violated paragraph (h) of 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2, or involved gross error. In this instance, approval of 
the petition was in violation of paragraph (h) of the cited remlation because the petition contained 
statements (i.e., the referenced work experience letter) that were not true and correct. See 8 C.F.R. 
2142(h)( )(iii(2. Moreover, since the work experience cannot be considered, approval of the 
petition was also in violation of paragraph (h) of the cited regulation in that the beneficiary did not qualify 
to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). 
Neither counsel nor the petitioner have offered any evidence to overcome the grounds for revocation, and 
the AAO will not withdraw the director's decision. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
9 136 1. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The director's August 6,2004 decision is affirmed. The approval of the petition is revoked,