dismissed EB-3 Case: Healthcare

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: 6 1p 2006 
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. 8 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 Director, Vermont Service Center, and is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a healthcare provider. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 
registered nurse. The director determined that the beneficiary had had violated Title 8 C.F. R. of Federal 
Regulation, Part 204.2(a)(l)(ii), and, denied the petition pursuant to section 204(c) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1 154(c). 
The Section 204(c) of the Act states: 
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) no petition shall be approved if (1) the 
alien has previously been accorded, or has sought to be accorded, an immediate relative or 
preference status as the spouse of a citizen of the United States or the spouse of an alien 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, by reason of a marriage determined by the 
Attorney General to have been entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration 
laws or (2) the Attorney General has determined that the alien has attempted or conspired to 
enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. 
The regulation 8 C.F.R. fj 204.2(a)(l)(ii) states in pertinent part: 
Fraudulent marriage prohibition. Section 1040 of the Act prohibits the approval of a visa 
petition filed on behalf of an alien who has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage 
for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. The Director will deny a petition for 
immigrant visa classification filed on behalf of any alien whom there is substantial and 
probative evidence of such an attempt or conspiracy, regardless of whether that alien 
received a benefit through the attempt or conspiracy. Although it is not necessary that the 
alien have been convicted of, or even prosecuted for, the attempt or conspiracy, the 
evidence of the attempt or conspiracy must be contained in the alien's file. 
The director had determined 
 7, 1993, a United States citizen spouse had filed a petition for 
alien relative (form I- 130) for 
 That petition was denied on March 3, 1995, after a finding by 
the director of marriage fraud 
 atricia Shuler to secure immigration benefits. 
Counsel submitted a Form I-290B appeal in this matter on July 1, 2004. In the section reserved for the basis of 
the appeal, counsel asserted that the director in the prior marriage based petition proceeding erred in holding that 
the aforementioned marriage was entered into in bad faith; that the marriage based petition proceeding was not 
fraudulent; and, CIS erred in denylng the subject employment based petition. 
Counsel selected on the appeal form the statement that indicated that counsel would be submitting a brief or 
additional evidence within 30 days,' however, despite a request fi-om the AAO for a brief andlor additional 
evidence from counsel, none was submitted. 
1 
 As part of the submission, on June 26, 2003, counsel submitted the beneficiary's diploma, transcript, and 
nursing license; an employment authorization document and the beneficiary's social security card; and a court 
document relating to the beneficiary's divorced. Counsel requested in the letter additional time to "gather 
other documents needed to respond" but none have been submitted. 
Page 3 
Counsel's statement on appeal contains no specific assignment of error, or introduces new evidence relative to the 
issues raised in the statement of appeal. Alleging that the director erred in some unspecified way is an insufficient 
basis for an appeal. 
8 C.F.R. $ 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." 
Counsel 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.