dismissed EB-3 Case: Culinary

identifving data deleted to 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
b~ 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional Pursuant to 
Section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(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, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the California Service Center, 
and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 203(b)(3) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(3) as a skilled worker or professional. The petitioner is an 
Indianlethnic restaurant. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a cook, 
specialty foreign food. As required by statute, a Form ETA 750, Application for Alien Employment 
Certification, approved by the Department of Labor, accompanies the petition. The director determined that 
the petitioner had not established its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date of 
October 27,2000. 
On appeal, counsel requests an additional thirty days to file a brief. However, as of this date, more than twenty 
four months later, ths office has not received a brief or additional evidence from counsel. In fact, in response to a 
fax requesting that the brief or additional evidence be sent to this office withn five business days, counsel states 
that he did not file a brief or evidence in support of ths appeal. Counsel states, "We contacted [Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS)] today to inquire about the case and were informed by the Duty Officer that the 1-140 
petition had, in fact, been denied on February 10,2004. We have requested a copy of the denial notice, in order 
to address the specific issues [CIS] raised and prepare an appropriate response. We hereby respectfully request a 
period of 30 days, within which, we will be submitting documentation in support of this appeal." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) provides that "[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." 
In this case, the bare assertion of error by counsel is not a sufficient basis for a substantive appeal. Counsel's 
assertion does not specifically address errors in the director's decision. 
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 summarily dismissed.