dismissed EB-3 Case: Iron Manufacturing

&l,S, Deparaar~tnb ofd-Ir>mciarrd Serajrity 
20 Mass, N.W. X~lm. A3042 
Vi'astringtot:, OC 30529 
U, S, Citizenzship 
and Immigratio~l 
< 
i > 
,A% 
Date: 
PE'T'KION: fnunigrant petitic~~t fir Alierr T?.'or!ier as a Skilled Worker or Prskssional pursuant to section 
203(b)(3) of rhe Imlnig-ration and Nationalilgi Act, 8 'C;'.S.C'. $ I 15_1(b)(3) 
This is the decision offhe Rdmir,istrat~ve Appeals Clffiee in your case. ALI documents 113-ve been returned io 
the c?ffiice that originaliy decided your case. Any fwthe!- iixquiry must Re made tcs that office. 
Robert P Wtcrnann. Chxf 
,?iclm>n~strat:vr Appeals I.lfficc 
DISCIJSSXON: The preference visa petitiorr was denied by 111e Director, Vcmzoin-t Service C.:entet-, and is 
now before the i~dmiiiis Appeals OEicz on appeal. The appeal will he disillisseif. 
The petitioner is an iron inan:-:facti,n-ii~g company. It seeks tcr entp'ic?y the beneficiary perntanei~ily ir! the 
linited States as an ir~ri: crn.ftsman. As req~ired by se;ituie, the petition is acccarnpaaicd hy a Form ETA 750. 
Applicatiort fix ttliei-~ Employment Ce~.iificatlo~-~, approved by the I.;. S. Department of' Labor. 7'11e director 
rfeta-!n!::ied that :he pelitioner had Trot estiblishcd that it had tile continuing ability to pay the beilei:cia~y thc 
prof'fei.ed wage beginning on the priority date 01 ti:e visa petition. The director denied [Ire petition 
accot,dir~gl;i. 
'1'ht: petitinnt:r subrizitted 3 Form I-29OK appcil in this matter. In fbe section resaved iior the hasis ofthe zppeal, 
the petitioner stated, "To expiain and to answer the rtelns on Gie notice csf denial of 9/?/2ti04." 'l%e petitio2er's 
stiiiement on appeal contains no specific assignrr~cnt of' error. Alleging Itlac he dii-e6:lor erred in some unspecified 
way i:: an jnsufiific.ien.t bask for an appeal. 
rcguiaticrm at 8 8C.F.R. 
 103.3(aj(l)(v) states, In perti~~ent par?: 
Ail ot-3cer to -whom an appeal is isken sl~all sun:n-tariiy dism~ss sn;i apgeai when thc p::rty 
corrcemed fails to ideniitj. speciiicd!y airy erroneous coaclusion of law or statemerrt of .Fiict for 
the appcai. 
'I'he getieicjner hrts failed to identi$- specifically ;in mo11eous conciusion of law or c: strtterrient sf hct as a hasis 
+: LOI .  it s appeai atld -the appeal rntlst be s:.iir!~~~irrl.ill; disnissr-6. 
ORDER: 
 The ~ppral is sumntanly d~rm~s(;t.$.