dismissed H-1B Case: Transportation Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
?, 
PILE: SRC 04 065 52662 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 8 @ ZQ0@ 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 l(a)(l S)(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 04 065 52662 
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. Tne appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a bus line. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as an operations manager, and endeavors to 
classify him as a nonirnmigrant 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. 5 I 10 1 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shalI be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. The director determined 
that the proffered position was not a specialty occupation. Accordingly, the petition was denied. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that it has complied with regulatory requirements to qualify the proffered position 
as a specialty occupation, and submitted financial documentation to establish that it has "sufficient resources to 
pay the beneficiary." Whether the petitioner has sufficient resources to pay the beneficiary is not an issue to be 
considered when determining whether a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The petitioner did not 
specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact by the director upon which the appeal is 
based. The appellant must do more than simply file an appeal. It must clearly demonstrate the basis for the 
appeal. This, the appellant has failed to do. As such, the appeal must be dismissed. 
The burden of proof in this proceeding rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.