dismissed H-1B Case: Occupational Therapy

PUBLIC COPY 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 209 5 1398 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: & f) 6 z(k% 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section IOl(a)(l5)(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. A11 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 04 209 5 1398 
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 rejected. 
The petitioner is a skilled nursing and sub-acute care facility that seeks to employ the beneficiary as an 
occupational therapist and to classify her as a nonirnmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 
10 l(a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 101 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b). The 
director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner did not meet its burden to establish that the 
beneficiary was eligible for the benefit sought under section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The beneficiary, not an authorized representative of the petitioner, signed the Fonn G-28, Entry of Appearance as 
Attorney or Representative submitted in conjunction with the appeal. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(CIS) regulations specifically state that a beneficiary of a visa petition is not a recognized party in a proceeding. 
8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficiary is not a recognized party, counsel is not authorized to file an appeal. 
8 C.F.R. 6 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). Accordingly, the AAO will reject the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
4 103.3(4(2)(v)(A)(l). 
The AAO notes that, at the time of the petition, July 20,2004, the beneficiary was not licensed as an occupational 
therapist. The director requested proof of licensure and the petitioner replied that the beneficiary was in the 
process of obtaining licensure. In a decision dated December 9,2004, the director denied the petition because the 
beneficiary did not have proper licensure. On appeal, counsel submits proof that the beneficiary received 
licensure from the state of Nevada on July 27, 2005. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 
(Reg. Comm. 1978). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.