PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
SustainedEB-2 · Appeal

Management consulting and intellectual property business

Business & finance · decided 2017-02-27 · TSC · FEB272017_01B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 1Merit and national importanceNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 2Well positioned to advance itNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 3Worth waiving the job offerNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

Upon review of the entire record including the Petitioner's W-2 statements for the Beneficiary, the Petitioner's tax returns for 3 years, and additional evidence submitted on appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that it had the ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. See in text
  • Accordingly, the appeal is sustained and the petition is approved under section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). See in text
  • ORDER: The appeal is sustained. See in text

Main reasons given

  • Upon review of the entire record including the Petitioner's W-2 statements for the Beneficiary, the Petitioner's tax returns for 3 years, and additional evidence submitted on appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that it had the ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward. See in text
Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (3) AAO finding (1)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · MATTER OF I- CORP. · APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION

    Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office DATE: FEB. 27,2017

    PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER The Petitioner, a management consulting and intellectual property business, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary in the United States as a director under the second preference immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). This employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a professional with an advanced degree for lawful permanent resident status.

    The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established its ability to pay the proffered wage as ofthe priority date.

    The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner submits additional evidence on appeal and asserts that it has established its ability to pay the profiered wage based upon the totality of the circumstances. Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal.

    The Petitioner must establish its ability to pay the proffered wage to the Beneficiary as of the priority date. The regulation 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) states in pertinent part:

    Ability of prospective employer to pay wage. Any petition filed by or for an employment-based immigrant which requires an offer of employment must be accompanied by evidence that the prospective United States employer has the ability to pay the proffered wage. The petitioner must demonstrate this ability at the time the priority date is established and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. Evidence o f this ability shall be either in the form o f copies o f annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements.

    The petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage is an essential element in evaluating whether a job offer is realistic. See Matter o.fGreat Wall, 16 I&N Dec. 142 (Acting Reg'! Comm'r 1977); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). In evaluating whether a job offer is realistic, USCIS requires the petitioner to demonstrate financial resources sufficient to pay the beneficiary's proffered wages, although the totality of the circumstances affecting the petitioning business will be considered if the evidence warrants such consideration. See Matter o[Sonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612 (Reg'l Comm'r 1967).

    Matter of!-Corp.

    Here, the priority date is May 13, 2014, and the proffered wage is $83,845. Upon review of the entire record including the Petitioner's W-2 statements for the Beneficiary, the Petitioner's tax returns for 3 years, and additional evidence submitted on appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that it had the ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of th~ Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has met that burden. Accordingly, the appeal is sustained and the petition is approved under section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).

    ORDER: The appeal is sustained.

    Cite as Matter off-Corp., ID# 80152 (AAO Feb. 27, 2017)