sustained EB-1C Case: Research And Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 29, 2024 In Re: 32467282 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a contract research and development company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its finance manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )(1 )(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign 
employee to the United States to work in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it has the ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will sustain the appeal. 
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. 8 C.F.R. §204.5(g)(2). The petitioner must demonstrate this ability at the time 
the priority date is established and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. 
Id. 
In determining ability to pay, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) first determines 
whether the petitioner paid the beneficiary the full proffered wage each year from the priority date. 
The petitioner may request that the proffered wage be prorated for the applicable portion of the priority 
date year. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual E.4(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov /policy-manual. In 
this scenario, USC IS may prorate the proffered wage if the record contains evidence of net income or 
payment of the beneficiary's wages specifically covering the portion of the year that occurred after the 
priority date, or both. Id. 
If the petitioner did not pay the proffered wage in any given year, USCIS next determines whether the 
petitioner had sufficient net income or net current assets to pay the proffered wage (reduced by any 
wages paid to the beneficiary). If net income and net current assets are insufficient, USCIS may 
consider other relevant factors, such as the number of years the petitioner has been in business, the 
size of its operations, the growth of its business over time, its number of employees, the occurrence of 
any uncharacteristic business expenditures or losses, its reputation within its industry, or whether a 
beneficiary will replace a current employee or outsourced service. See Matter ofSonegawa, 12 I&N 
Dec. 612, 614-15 (Reg'l Comm'r 1967). 
Considering the totality of the circumstances under Matter of Sonegawa, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has established its ability to pay the proffered wage by a preponderance of the evidence. As 
all other eligibility requirements for the requested classification have been satisfied, we will withdraw 
the Director's decision and sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2