dismissed H-1B Case: Radiology

Mentif- data dela t~ 
Prevat &?miy 
k-nofpasaaal - 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 03 206 50122 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(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: 
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 03 206 50122 
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 an acute care general hospital that employs the beneficiary as a radiology technologist, as 
authorized by a previously approved petition to employ the beneficiary as an H-1B nonimrnigrant worker in a 
specialty occupation pursuant to section IOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 llOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). In order to continue this employment beyond the period approved in the initial 
petition, the petitioner endeavors to continue the beneficiary's H-1B classification and extend her stay. 
The director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner had failed to establish that the proffered 
position meets the definition of a specialty occupation as set forth at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2@)(4)(iii)(A). 
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 August 10, 2004, counsel submitted a Form I-290B (Notice of Appeal) without a brief or evidence. 
Counsel entered a check mark at the box at section 2 of the form that indicates that he would send a brief 
and/or evidence within 30 days. However, by a facsimile transmission to the AAO on October 5, 2005, 
counsel stated that he neither had filed nor would file a brief or evidence on appeal. The Form I-290B, 
counsel's only submission on appeal, does not identify a basis for the appeal. 
On November 15, 2004, the AAO received a three-page document entitled "Petition to request 
reconsideration of visa extension," dated November 8, 2004, that bears the handwritten names and addresses 
of 60 persons to endorse this statement: 
We the undersigned employees of [the petitioner] humbly petition the Immigration and 
Naturalization Services to reconsider the extension of visa for [the beneficiary]. His 
contributions to professional healthcare within our facility have been invaluable. We feel that 
he is a much valued employee and contributing member of this community and we would be 
greatly affected by his absence. 
The AAO recognizes this document as a submission by the petitioner, as its entry 43 includes the signature of 
the Director of Clinical Operations who signed the Form 1-129 (Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker) and the 
G-28 (Notice of Entry of Appearance) on behalf of the petitioner. However, the document specifies no legal 
or factual error by the director: 
Later, on November 30, 2004, the AAO received a letter f?om a Mr. Randall J. Wages that requests 
reconsideration of the director's decision on the basis of the beneficiary's academic degree, character, and 
work ethic. The letter is not properly before the AAO: it does not identify any relationship between the 
author and the petitioner, and there is no evidence that the author, who also submitted the letter, is an 
authorized representative of the petitioner. See 8 C.F.R. 103.2(a)(3) (a petitioner's representative must be 
either an attorney or an accredited representative as defined in the regulations); 8 C.F.R. 
3 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l) (an appeal filed by a person or entity not entitled to file it must be rejected as 
improperly filed). Also, the letter does not provide a basis for appeal, as it does not identifj any factual or 
legal error by the director. 
SRC 03 206 50122 
Page 3 
Counsel fails to specifjr how the director made any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in denylng 
the petition. As neither the petitioner nor counsel presents additional evidence on appeal to overcome the 
decision of the director, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The burden of proof in this proceeding rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.