dismissed EB-3 Case: Electrical Engineering

iden-g data deleted to 
prevent clear1 J unwarranted 
invasion nf ~#'monaO grivarc~ 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
"l 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional pursuant to section 
203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1 153(b)(3) 
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 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Acting Director (director), California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a manufacturer of automated electroplating equipment. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
permanently in the United States as an electrical engineer. As required by statute, a Form ETA 750, 
Application for Alien Employment Certification approved by the Department of Labor, accompanied the 
petition. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that it had the continuing ability to 
pay the beneficiary the proffered wage bepnning on the priority date of the visa petition, and denied the 
petition accordingly. 
On appeal, counsel indicated that she would submit a brief and/or evidence to the AAO within 30 days and stated 
the following: "Please see brief to follow wihn 30 days." 
Counsel dated the appeal September 1, 2005. As of this date, more than 5 months later, the AAO has 
received nothing further. The AAO sent a fax to counsel on February 7, 2006 informing counsel that no 
separate brief and/or evidence was received to confirm whether or not she would send anything else in this 
matter, and as a courtesy, providing her with five (5) days to respond. Counsel returned the form checking a 
box that she did not file a brief or evidence in support of the appeal as she indicated on the Form I-290B 
without any additional comment concerning the substantive or procedural aspects of the case. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional 
evidence. She has not even expressed disagreement with the director's decision. The appeal must therefore be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.