dismissed EB-3 Case: Real Estate

U.S. Department of Efomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. 3000 
b 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwamnted 
invasion of personal privacy 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PubLiC COPY 
FILE: 
 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 1 6 2007 
SRC 03 099 5 1491 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § 1 153(b)(3) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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, Chie 
Administrative Appeals Office 
'- 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the preference visa petition. On motion the 
director withdrew the decision of denial and reopened the matter, then denied the petition again. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Real EstateILand Development firm. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the 
United States as a bookkeeper. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary 
has the employment experience stated as mandatory on the approved Form ETA 750 labor certification and 
denied the petition accordingly. 
The petitioner was represented by counsel from the time it filed the visa petition through filing the appeal. 
The space on the Form I-290B appeal reserved for the petitioner to state the basis for the appeal was left blank. 
On that appeal, however, counsel indicated that he would provide a brief or evidence within 30 days. No bnef or 
evidence was submitted, either with the form appeal or subsequently. On July 6,2007 this office sent counsel a 
facsimile transmission asking whether he had submitted any such information, argument, or documentation. In a 
faxed response dated and sent July 1 1,2007 counsel stated, 
The Petitioner and the beneficiary have terminated my services, and have new representation. I 
will need 7 business days to find my file in my storage area and send the documents to their new 
counsel to discuss the case. I can not [sic] discuss their case at this time. 
Counsel's statements on appeal and in response to this office's fax contain no specific assignment of error. 
Alleging that the director erred in some unspecified way is an insufficient basis for an appeal. The regulation at 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." 
The petitioner, its former counsel, and its present counsel have 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.