dismissed EB-3 Case: Restaurant

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, N.W. Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Other, Unskilled Worker Pursuant to 5 203(b)(3) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(3) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
TNSTRUCTIONS: 
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. 
kobkrt Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center, and is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a restaurant. It seeks to employ the beneficiaw permanently in the United States as a cheftcook. 
The director establishedthat it was the 
successor-in-interest to 
 and denied the petition accordingly. 
Counsel submitted a Form I-290B appeal in this matter. In the section reserved for the basis of the appeal, 
counsel asserted serially that the director arrived at his decision "by misinterpreting evidence and then using it 
negatively against ...[ the petitioner]" without stating what evidence was misinterpreted and how it was used 
negatively; that "CIS failed to consider material evidence" without specifjring what material evidence in the 
record of proceeding; that "CIS failed to adequately consider [submitted] background documentation" without 
counsel was referencing or why it was important; and, that "CIS failed to 
intention . . . [was] to sponsor ...[ the beneficiary]" where the director stated 
issue for which the petition was denied above stated. 
Further counsel opines that owner- (former owner om 
s the same company but only with two restaurants," and that CIS failed to recognize this fact.' 
The director found that there were two companies and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the petitioner 
as the successor-in-interest to 
 In his contention 
counsel is begging the question. He has avoided answering the director's request for evidence in this matter, or, 
proving his contention upon appeal on that issue by "self-certification" as the director characterized his conduct. 
Counsel stated on appeal, without proof or substantiation, that both restaurants are the same company.3, 
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 from the AAO for a brief and/or additional 
evidence from counsel, none was submitted. On July 7,2006, counsel confirmed that none was submitted. 
and, the applicantJemployer on the labor certification was 
at both restaurants are the same company. 
3 
 In order for a "successor in interest" determination to be made, the following documentation should be 
submitted along with a new 1-140 petition: a copy of the notice of approval for the initial Form 1-140; a copy 
of the labor certification submitted with the initial Form 1-140; documentation to establish the ability to pay 
the proffered wage - evidence of this ability must be either in the form of copies of annual reports, federal tax 
returns, or audited financial statements; a fully executed uncertified labor certification (Form ETA 750, Parts 
A & B) completed by the petitioner; documentation to show how the change of ownership occurred: buyout, 
merger, etc.; and documentation to show the petitioner will assume all rights, duties, obligations, and assets of 
the original employer. An successor in interest must establish that it has assumed all of the rights, duties, 
obligations, and assets of the original employer; continue to operate the same type of business as the original 
employer; and, establish that the new business has the ability to pay as of the priority date. Matter of Dial 
and a new restaurant was then commenced in a new 
the director's finding requesting additional evidence on this 
material fact was reasonable. 
Page 3 
Counsel's statement on appeal contains 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. 5 103.3(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.