dismissed EB-2 Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
pm- ddy m- 
U.S. Department of Homclrnd Sccurity 
20 Mass. Avc.. N.W.. Urn. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: OEC 1 4 2005 
EAC 03 020 52708 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
t h hat originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
4%J * 
?.% -9 / 
bAf= " *A 
...++..$ 
,'$ Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Off~ce 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The record contains Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, indicating that the 
petitioner is represented by counsel, who shall receive a copy of this decision. Nevertheless, there is nothing in 
the record to indicate that counsel participated in the preparation or submission of the appeal. 
8 C.F.R. $ 103,3(aXl)(v) states, in pertinent part, "[aln 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." 
On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, filed on February 22, 2005, the petitioner indicated that he would 
submit a brief and/or further evidence within thirty days. To date, over nine months later, careful review of 
the record reveals no subsequent submission; all other documentation in the record predates the issuance of 
the notice of decision. The petitioner offers no statement on appeal, beyond the claim that an additional 
submission is forthcoming. Thus, the petitioner has offered no basis for a substantive appeal. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact 
as a basis for the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.