dismissed EB-3 Case: Industrial Demolition

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of ped priv'~cy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 06 027 5 1648 
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. tj 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. 
1 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Texas 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. 8 1153(b)(3) as a skilled worker or professional. The petitioner is a 
business involved in the demolition of industrial plants, ships, and barges. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
permanently in the United States as a welding machine operator ARC. 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 April 30,2001. 
On appeal, counsel declines to provide a brief. Counsel states, "We are appealing the Service Center's decision." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(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, counsel 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.