dismissed H-1B Case: Medical Instrumentation

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 054 52363 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
Date: SEP 0 2 2905 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 
WAC 04 054 52363 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimrnigrant 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 medical instrumentation business that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a chief operations 
officer and project engineer. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nohimmigrant worker in a 
specialty occupation pursuant to 5 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 3 llOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the record contains discrepancies. On appeal, the petitioner submits a 
Certificate of Incorporation, a list of the petitioner's 11 "Executive and Board of Directors Members," with an 
explanation that the 17 claimed employees on the petition was incorrect. The petitioner also submits a 
facsimile message from the Cincinnati Accounts Management Center of the Internal Revenue Service, 
indicating that the petitioner has had no employees through the first quarter of 2004. 
The record indicates that the beneficiary will be the petitioner's only employee, as opposed to the "chief 
operations officer" of a business with 17 employees, as reflected on the petition. Even if the AAO were to 
consider the petitioner's 11 board members as employees, the petitioner still has not resolved the 
inconsistency reflected on the petition, namely that the petitioner has 17 employees. It is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to 
explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on 
any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of 
the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 
1988). 
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. 
0 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On the Form I-290B, the petitioner fails to specify how the director made any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact in denying the petition. As the petitioner does not present additional evidence on appeal to 
overcome the decision of the director, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.3(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.