dismissed H-1B Case: Physical Therapy

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 04 180 53627 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 2 9 2006 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
0 
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, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 180 53627 
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 placement agency that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a physical therapist. The 
petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 
section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 1101 
(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). The director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner did not establish that the 
beneficiary is qualified to perform the services of the specialty occupation. The director requested evidence 
showing that the alien holds a license to practice the profession of physical therapy from the state of intended 
employment, or other evidence to establish that the beneficiary is immediately eligible to engage in her 
profession pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(h)(4)(v). The director also found the beneficiary inadmissible as the 
petitioner failed to submit a certification from an approved credentialing organization under section 
212(a)(5)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1182. The petitioner did not submit such evidence. The director found 
that the evidence of record did not establish that the beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty 
occupation or that she is admissible to the U.S. as a foreign healthcare worker. 
Counsel submitted a timely Form I-290B on January 4, 2005 and indicated that a brief andlor additional 
evidence would be submitted within 30 days. As of this date, the AAO has not received any additional 
evidence into the record. Therefore, the record is complete. 
In general, the director's decision to revoke the approval of a petition will be affirmed, notwithstanding the 
submission of evidence on appeal, where a petitioner fails to offer a timely explanation or rebuttal to a 
properly issued notice of intent to revoke. See Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. 568, 569 (BIA 1988). No 
explanation has been offered for the petitioner's failure to address these issues in a timely response to the 
director's notice. 
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. 
tj 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
In the appeal letter attached to the Form I-290B, counsel fails to specify how the director made any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact in denying the petition. As counsel fails to 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. tj 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. tj 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.