dismissed EB-3 Case: Skilled Worker

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, Rrn. A3042,425 I Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
bi 
-. 
LIN 02 248 51190 
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. 
kobert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 9 1153(b)(3), as a skilled worker. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established the petitioner's identity, that it had the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary 
the proffered wage beginning on the priority date of the visa petition, or that the beneficiary had met the 
minimum experience and job qualifications. 
On appeal, counsel submits no brief and no additional evidence, and while asserting that the petitioner has the 
ability to pay and that the beneficiary has the requisite experience, she does not point to any specific error in 
the decision or even address the director's finding of "the uncertainty regarding the exact petitioning entity." 
It is noted that the director explained in detail why he found that the petitioner had not established its identity 
among several different corporations owned by the same shareholder in addition to why the record of proceedings 
does not establish either the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage or that the beneficiary met the minimum 
experience the ETA 750 required. 
By contrast, counsel does not, on appeal, supplement previously submitted evidence. 
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 
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.