dismissed EB-3 Case: Skilled Worker

i-tifying da*a deletedm 
prevent clearly mw 4 
dpi-Y 
invasion of perSO 
PUBLlc COPY 
U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: m Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 1 6 2006 
WAC-00-273-55 141 
In re: 
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) 
IN 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. 
~dbert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Acting Director (Director), California Service Center, revoked the approval of 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. fj 1153(b)(3) as a skilled worker. After properly issuing a notice of intent to revoke and 
considering the petitioner's responsive submissions, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish 
its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on the priority date, and that documents submitted in 
connection with establishing the beneficiary's qualifications were fraudulent, and revoked the approval of the 
petition accordingly. 
On appeal, counsel indicated that he would not submit an additional brief and/or evidence to the AAO and stated 
the following: "[Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)] revoked the 1-140 petition in error. The petitioner 
response to the intent to revoke dated August 9, 2004 did overcome the grounds of revocation." 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. fj 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 revocation and has not provided any additional 
evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.