dismissed EB-3 Case: Unknown

tdeniiiyirg data  delete^ to 
prevent clear1 y unwarranted 
invasion d personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. 5 1153(b)(3) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Acting Director (Director), California 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. 5 1153(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. 
On appeal, counsel indicated that he would submit a brief andfor evidence to the AAO within 30 days and stated 
the following: "I strongly believe that the documents submitted were sufficient to comply with the request for 
additional documents. I reserve the right to raise additional grounds for appeal." 
Counsel dated the appeal October 6, 2004. As of this date, 18 months later, the AAO has received nothing 
further. The AAO sent a fax to counsel on March 7, 2006 informing counsel that no separate brief andlor 
evidence was received to confirm whether or not he would send anything else in this matter, and as a 
courtesy, providing him with five (5) days to respond. Counsel responded by checking a box that he did not 
file an additional brief or evidence and signed his name. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. He has not even expressed disagreement with the director's decision. The appeal must therefore be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.