dismissed EB-3 Case: Skilled Worker

igjeatmng dnb dekkd to 
pmvernt clearly unwal jallted 
F" ,:? , 
* ;,f n2vG - 
tZP*,::?<? "-' - 3vay 
PUBLIC copy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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. 9 1153(b)(3) 
IN 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, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 10 1 50007 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 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. 9 1 153(b)(3) as a skilled worker. The director determined that the 
petitioner failed to establish its ability to pay the proffered wage and denied the petition accordingly. 
The file contains correspondence fro 
 purporting to represent the petitioner. That 
attorney filed a G-28 Notice of 
 the beneficiary but did not file a Form G-28 
in this matter on behalf of the petitioner. The record contains no indication that the petitioner has agreed to be 
represented by counsel. On December 14, 2004, the director notified the petitioner that the appeal had been 
filed without a properly executed Form G-28, and requested petitioners submit such a form directly to the 
AAO. However, the AAO has received no such form. Accordingly, all representations will be considered, 
but the decision will be furnished only to the petitioner. 
On appeal, counsel indicated that he would submit a brief and/or evidence to the AAO within 30 days and 
stated the following: 
The denial was based in erroneous and/or incomplete information; as well be evidneced [sic] by the 
material to be submitted within thirty (30) days." 
Counsel dated the appeal August 17, 2004. As of this date, more than 19 months later, the AAO has received 
nothng further. The AAO sent a fax to counsel on March 6, 2006, informing counsel indicating that the AAO 
had received no further brief or evidence, and aslung counsel to confirm whether or not he had previously sent 
anything else in this matter since filing the Form I-290B. The AAO, as a courtesy, provided him with five (5) 
days to respond. To date, more than two weeks later, the AAO had received no reply. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to 
identifL 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, nor has he expressed disagreement with the director's decision. The appeal must therefore be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.