dismissed EB-3 Case: Skilled Worker

LQntilyinS data dehi to 
prevent &art$ unwamntod 
iavastoa OC personnl privacy 
U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
tg 
PUBLIC COPY 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: Sfir 7 LUUb 
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: 
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. 
~obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, revoked the previously approved immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. tj 1153(b)(3) as a skilled worker. The director revoked the previously 
approved immigrant visa petition following a consular investigation into the beneficiary's alleged work 
experience used to meet the qualifications of the certified labor certification. The investigation concluded that 
the letter supplied to document the beneficiary's work experience was not valid, and the petitioner did not 
supply any additional information to show that the beneficiary otherwise met the labor certification 
requirements. Upon receipt of the Service Center's Notice of Intent to Revoke, the petitioner had submitted a 
second letter from the source that wrote the original experience letter on behalf of the beneficiary, which 
sought to reconcile incongruous aspects between the first letter and information obtained during the consular 
investigation. The Service Center relied on Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988), which states: 
"Doubt raised on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability 
and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition." Further, "It is incumbent 
on the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, and attempts 
to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, 
in fact, lies will not suffice." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-592. As the petitioner failed to reconcile the 
inconsistencies, and the beneficiary could not provide any further information regarding prior experience to 
show that he met the requirements of the certified labor certification, the previously approved 1-140 was 
revoked by decision of February 10,2005. 
On appeal, counsel merely stated: "We disagree with the decision made by the US Citizenship and Immigration 
Services." The appeal form indicated that the petitioner would not be submitting a separate brief or evidence. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. tj 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
Counsel here has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional 
evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.