dismissed EB-3 Case: Automotive Repair

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarrarmted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, N. W. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 1 6 21106 
EAC 04 243 51 118 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Other, Unskilled Worker Pursuant to 
9 203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 153(b)(3) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center, and is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is an automobile body repair shop. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the 
United States as an automobile repair technician. As required by statute, the petition is accompanied by a 
Form ETA 750, Application for Alien Employment Certification, approved by the U. S. Department of Labor. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established that it had the continuing ability to pay the 
beneficiary the proffered wage beginning on the priority date of the visa petition. The director denied the 
petition accordingly. 
The petitioner submitted a Form I-290B appeal in this matter. In the section reserved for the basis of 
the appeal, the petitioner left this section blank. The petitioner indicated by a check box that he was 
going to submit additional evidence or a brief within 30 days but he has not done so. 
The petitioner's statement on appeal contains no specific assignment of error. Alleging that the director 
erred in some unspecified way is an insufficient basis for an appeal. 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
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. 
The petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact as 
a basis for the appeal and the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.