dismissed EB-3 Case: Masonry

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: - 
EAC-04-026-50806 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
Date: 9 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. $ 1153(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, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Acting Center Director ("Director"), Vermont Service Center, denied the immigrant 
visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be 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. 5 1153(b)(3) as a slulled worker. The director determined that the petitioner could not 
document that the beneficiary had the experience required in the certified ETA 750A job offer, as the petitioner 
submitted no evidence to document the beneficiary's prior skills. 
On appeal, counsel merely stated that "Petitioner seeks review of the Citizenship and Immigration Services' 
November 8, 2004 decision on a de novo basis. Petitioner will supply evidence and argument which will 
demonstrate that he possessed the required two years of work experience as a cement mason or cement mason's 
helper as of the priority date as was stated in the orignal I-140 petition." 
The appeal was filed on December 13,2004. As of ths date, more than twenty months after filing the appeal, the 
MO has received nothng further. On September 20, 2006, the MO faxed counsel and allowed the petitioner 
an additional opportunity to submit evidence withn a five day time period. The petitioner did not respond, or 
submit any additional documentation. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to 
identi@ specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
A review of the underlying record shows that the petitioner sent no evidence to document that the beneficiary met 
the requirements of the certified ETA 750. The petition was accordingly denied. On appeal, counsel has not 
provided any additional evidence to overcome the reason for denial. The appeal must therefore be summarily 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.