dismissed EB-2 Case: Computer Science

identifYing data deletoo to 
prevent ch.;,r':' Irl"--"f d '. " "" r,UHe lnvaslOn o! ., .. -'n''','j , '''.J ,)f/vac)' 
~UBLICCOPY 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit)' 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
qfJice of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date:NOV 1 S Z010 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. 
The fee for a Form I-290B is currently $585, but will increase to $630 on November 23, 20 I O. Any appeal or 
motion filed on or after November 23, 20 I 0 must be filed with the $630 fee. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to 
reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
crv 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.oscis.2:0V 
Page 4 
alien must have a bachelor's degree with at least five years progressive experience in the 
professions." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 955, 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. 1990, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6784, 1990 
WL 201613 at *6786 (Oct. 26,1990). 
At the time of enactment of section 203(b )(2) of the Act in 1990, it had been almost thirteen years 
since Matter of Shah was issued. Congress is presumed to have intended a four-year degree when it 
stated that an alien "must have a bachelor's degree" when considering equivalency for second 
preference immigrant visas. We must assume that Congress was aware of the agency's previous 
treatment of a "bachelor's degree" under the Act when the new classification was enacted and did 
not intend to alter the agency's interpretation of that term. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580-
81 (1978) (Congress is presumed to be aware of administrative and judicial interpretations where it 
adopts a new law incorporating sections of a prior law). See also 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (Nov. 
29, 1991) (an alien must have at least a bachelor's degree). 
In 1991, when the final rule for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 was published in the Federal Register, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (the Service), responded to criticism that the regulation 
required an alien to have a bachelor's degree as a minimum and that the regulation did not allow for 
the substitution of experience for education. After reviewing section 121 of the Immigration Act of 
1990, Pub. L. 101-649 (1990), and the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, 
the Service specifically noted that both the Act and the legislative history indicate that an alien must 
have at least a bachelor's degree: 
The Act states that, in order to qualify under the second classification, alien members 
of the professions must hold "advanced degrees or their equivalent." As the 
legislative history ... indicates, the equivalent of an advanced degree is "a bachelor's 
degree with at least five years progressive experience in the professions." Because 
neither the Act nor its legislative history indicates that bachelor's or advanced degrees 
must be United States degrees, the Service will recognize foreign equivalent degrees. 
But both the Act and its legislative history make clear that, in order to qualify as a 
professional under the third classification or to have experience equating to an 
advanced degree under the second, an alien must have at least a bachelor's degree. 
56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29,1991) (emphasis added). 
There is no provision in the statute or the regulations that would allow a beneficiary to qualify under 
section 203(b)(2) of the Act as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with 
anything less than a full baccalaureate degree. More specifically, a three-year bachelor's degree will 
not be considered to be the "foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree. 
Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. at 245. Where the analysis of the beneficiary's credentials relies on 
work experience alone or a combination of multiple lesser degrees, the result is the "equivalent" of a 
bachelor's degree rather than a "foreign equivalent degree.,,2 In order to have experience and 
, Compare 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) (defining for purposes of a nonimmigrant visa 
classification, the "equivalence to completion of a college degree" as including, in certain cases, a 
specific combination of education and experience). The regulations pertaining to the immigrant 
Page 5 
education equating to an advanced degree under section 203(b )(2) of the Act, the beneficiary must 
have a single degree that is the "foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). As explained in the preamble to the final rule, persons who claim to qualify 
for an immigrant visa by virtue of education or experience equating to a bachelor's degree may 
qualify for a visa pursuant to section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act as a skilled worker with more than 
two years of training and experience. 56 Fed. Reg. at 60900. 
For this classification, advanced degree professional, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) 
requires the submission of an "official academic record showing that the alien has a United States 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree." For classification as a member of the 
professions, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(l)(3)(ii)(C) requires the submission of "an official 
college or university record showing the date the baccalaureate degree was awarded and the area of 
concentration of study." We cannot conclude that the evidence required to demonstrate that an alien 
is an advanced degree professional is any less than the evidence required to show that the alien is a 
professional. To do so would undermine the congressionally mandated classification scheme by 
allowing a lesser evidentiary standard for the more restrictive visa classification. Moreover, the 
commentary accompanying the proposed advanced degree professional regulation specifically states 
that a "baccalaureate means a bachelor's degree received from a college or university, or an 
equivalent degree." (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30306 (July 5, 1991). Compare 
8 c.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) (relating to aliens of exceptional ability requiring the submission of "an 
official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award 
from a college, university, school or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional 
ability"). 
As noted above, the beneficiary possesses a three-year Bachelor of Science Degree from the 
University of Delhi and a Post-Graduate Diploma in Systems Management from the National 
Institute of Information Technology (NUT) in India. The record contains two evaluations of the 
beneficiary's credentials. The first was submitted with the Form 1-140 petition and was prepared by 
the The evaluation states that the 
beneficiary's Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Delhi is equivalent to three years of 
university-level credit from an accredited college of university in the United States. The evaluation 
further states that the beneficiary'S post-graduate diploma from NUT is equivalent to "professional 
training offered by private training centers in the United States." The evaluation concludes that the 
beneficiary "has the equivalent of three years of university level credit from an accredited college or 
university in the United States." The evaluation further concludes that the combination of the 
beneficiary's education and "employment experiences" are equivalent to a bachelor's degree in 
management information systems from an accredited college or university in the United States. 
Subsequently, in response to a Notice of Intent to Deny (NorD) issued by the director, the petitioner 
submitted an evaluation of the beneficiary's education prepared by of Pace 
University. The evaluation states that the beneficiary'S Bachelor of Science degree from the 
University of Delhi is equivalent to three years of studies at an accredited U.S. college or university. 
The evaluation further states that "the completion by the candidate of the post-secondary program at 
classification sought in this matter do not contain similar language. 
Page 6 
the standing alone, represents the fulfillment of the 
equivalent of a Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science at an accredited US college or 
university." The evaluations in the record are therefore inconsistent. The submission of inconsistent 
evidence precludes approval unless those inconsistencies are overcome with objective credible 
evidence. More specifically, it is incumbent on the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the 
record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, 
absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-592 (BIA 1988). The petitioner has failed to resolve the 
inconsistencies in the evaluations and has thus failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses a 
U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree. 
Despite counsel's claims to the contrary on appeal, there is no evidence in the record that the 
beneficiary's Bachelor of Science Degree from the University of Delhi is a foreign equivalent degree 
to a U.S. bachelor's degree. As noted above, both evaluations in the record state that the 
beneficiary'S three-year Bachelor of Science degree is equivalent to three years of study at a U.S. 
institution of higher education. 
Further, there is no evidence that NIIT is a college or university. Instead, the evaluation by •••• 
••• states that NIIT is a "private institution" which offers classes that are "comparable to classes 
offered by universities in the United States." As noted above, a degree from a college or university 
is required for classification as an advanced degree professional. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
Because the beneficiary does not have a "United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree," the beneficiary does not qualify for preference visa classification under section 203(b )(2) of 
the Act as he does not have the minimum level of education required for the equivalent of an 
advanced degree. 
Qualifications for the Job Offered 
Relying in part on Madany, 696 F.2d at 1008, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit (Ninth Circuit) stated: 
[Ilt appears that the DOL is responsible only for determining the availability of 
suitable American workers for a job and the impact of alien employment upon the 
domestic labor market. It does not appear that the DOL's role extends to 
determining if the alien is qualified for the job for which he seeks sixth preference 
status. That determination appears to be delegated to the INS under section 204(b), 
8 U .S.c. § 1154(b), as one of the determinations incident to the INS's decision 
whether the alien is entitled to sixth preference status. 
K.R.K. irvine, inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1983). The court relied on an amicus brief 
from DOL that stated the following: 
The labor certification made by the Secretary of Labor ... pursuant to section 
212(a)[(5)1 of the ... [Actl ... is binding as to the findings of whether there are able, 
Page 7 
willing, qualified, and available United States workers for the job offered to the alien, 
and whether employment of the alien under the terms set by the employer would 
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed United 
States workers. The labor certification in no way indicates that the alien offered the 
certified job opportunity is qualified (or not qualified) to peljorm the duties of that 
job. 
(Emphasis added.) /d. at 1009. The Ninth Circuit, citing 699 F.2d at 1006, revisited 
this issue, stating: 'The INS, therefore, may make a de novo determination of whether the alien is in 
fact qualified to fill the certified job offer." Tongatapu, 736 F. 2d at 1309. 
The key to determining the job qualifications is found on Form ETA-750 Part A. This section of the 
application for alien labor certification, "Offer of Employment," describes the terms and conditions 
of the job offered. It is important that the ETA-7S0 be read as a whole. The instructions for the 
Form ETA 750A, item 14, provide: 
Minimum Education, Training, and Experience Required to Perform the Job 
Duties. Do not duplicate the time requirements. For example, time required in 
training should not also be listed in education or experience. Indicate whether months 
or years are required. Do not include restrictive requirements which are not actual 
business necessities for performance on the job and which would limit consideration 
of otherwise qualified U.S. workers. 
Moreover, when determining whether a beneficiary is eligible for a preference immigrant visa, 
USCIS may not ignore a term of the labor certification, nor may it impose additional requirements. 
See Madany, 696 F.2d at 1015. USCIS must examine "the language of the labor certification job 
requirements" in order to determine what the job requires. [d. The only rational manner by which 
USCIS can be expected to interpret the meaning of terms used to describe the requirements of a job 
in a labor certification is to examine the certified job offer exactly as it is completed by the 
prospective employer. See Rosedale Linden Park Company v. Smith, 595 F. Supp. 829, 833 (D.D.C. 
1984) (emphasis added). users's interpretation of the job's requirements, as stated on the labor 
certification must involve reading and applying the plain language of the alien employment 
certification application form. See id. at 834. USCIS cannot and should not reasonably be expected 
to look beyond the plain language of the labor certification that DOL has formally issued or 
otherwise attempt to divine the employer's intentions through some sort of reverse engineering of 
the labor certification. 
The minimum level of education required for the proffered position is set forth in part 14 of the 
Form ETA 750. Specifically, Part 14 states that the proffered position requires four years of college 
and a "B.S. or equiv. degree" in computer science, engineering, math or equivalent. 
On appeal, counsel states that an employer "is permitted to define its terms in the labor certification 
and the employer defines or equivalent to be education evaluated as equal to a U.S. Bachelor of 
Science Degree by a credential evaluating service taking only the beneficiary's education into 
consideration." However, in order to qualify for classification under section 203(b )(2) of the Act, the 
Page 8 
position must require a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or equivalent. As 
stated above, in order to have experience and education equating to an advanced degree under 
section 203(b)(2) of the Act, the beneficiary must have a single degree that is the "foreign equivalent 
degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Thus, to the extent that 
counsel is suggesting that an employer may accept something less than a single degree that is the 
"foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree, and still be eligible for 
classification under section 203(b )(2) of the Act, counsel is incorrect. 
Counsel also states on appeal that the director ignored the fact that the beneficiary's three-year 
Bachelor of Science degree required more classroom hours than a typical U.S. bachelor's degree. 
The record includes an affidavit from the beneficiary regarding the number of classroom hours 
which he completed in his three-year bachelor's degree program. However, there is nothing in the 
record establishing that a comparison of classroom hours is a legitimate way to compare a three-year 
Indian bachelor's degree and a U.S. bachelor's degree. For example, if the ratio of hours spent 
studying outside the classroom is different in the Indian and U.S. systems, comparing hours spent in 
the classroom would be misleading.] As discussed above, the evaluations submitted by the 
petitioner clearly state that the beneficiary's three-year bachelor's degree is only equivalent to three 
years of study at a U.S. college or university. Therefore, even assuming the beneficiary's bachelor's 
degree program required more classroom hours than a typical U.S. bachelor's degree program, it 
does not appear that this is an accurate measure for comparing such programs. 
Furthermore, as noted above, the beneficiary's NUT program cannot qualify the beneficiary for the 
classification sought because NUT is not a college or university. See 8 C.F.R. §204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
The petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary has a "United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree," and, thus, does not qualify for preference visa classification under 
section 203(b)(2) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary does not meet the job requirements on the 
labor certification. For these reasons, considered both in sum and as separate grounds for denial, the 
petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, petitioner had not established that it had the continuing ability to 
pay the beneficiary the proffered wage beginning on the priority date of the visa petition. An 
application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied 
by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143,145 (3d Cir. 2004) 
(noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
3See e.g., Robert A. Watkins, The University of Texas at Austin, "Assigning Undergraduate Transfer 
Credit: It's Only an Arithmetical Exercise," at 
(accessed November 3, 
2010)(stating that the Indian system is exam-based instead of credit-based, thus transfer credits from 
India are derived from the number of exams passed; and that, in India, six exams equates to 30 credit 
hours). 
Page 9 
The regulation at 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 of this ability shall be either in the form of copies of 
annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements. 
The petitioner must demonstrate the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on the 
priority date, which is the date the Form ETA 750, was accepted for processing by any office within 
the employment system of the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
Here, the Form ETA 750 was accepted on October 29,2003. The proffered wage as stated on the 
Form ETA 750 is $91,000.00 per year. 
The petitioner must establish that its job offer to the beneficiary is a realistic one. Because the filing 
of a Form ETA 750 labor certification application establishes a priority date for any immigrant 
petition later based on the Form ETA 750, the petitioner must establish that the job offer was 
realistic as of the priority date and that the offer remained realistic for each year thereafter, until the 
beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. The petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage is 
an essential element in evaluating whether a job offer is realistic. See Matter of Great Wall, 16 I&N 
Dec. 142 (Acting Reg. Comm. 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 of Sonegawa, 
12 I&N Dec. 612 (Reg. Comm. 1967). 
In determining the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage during a given period, USCIS will 
first examine whether the petitioner employed and paid the beneficiary during that period. If the 
petitioner establishes by documentary evidence that it employed the beneficiary at a salary equal to 
or greater than the proffered wage, the evidence will be considered prima facie proof of the 
petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. In the instant case, the petitioner submitted a copy of 
the Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, issued to the beneficiary for the year 2006. The Form W-2 
shows that the beneficiary was paid $58,638.30 in 2006, which is $32,36l.70 less than the proffered 
wage. The petitioner must establish its ability to pay the difference between the proffered wage and 
wages paid to the beneficiary in 2006. The petitioner must also establish its ability to pay the 
beneficiary the full proffered wage in 2003, 2004 and 2005. 
If the petitioner does not establish that it employed and paid the beneficiary an amount at least equal 
to the proffered wage during that period, USCIS will next examine the net income figure reflected 
on the petitioner's federal income tax return, without consideration of depreciation or other 
expenses. River Street Donuts, LLC v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d III (151 Cir. 2009); Taco Especial v. 
Napolitano, --- F. Supp. 2d. ---, 2010 WL 956001, at *6 (E.D. Mich. 2010. Reliance on federal 
Page 10 
income tax returns as a basis for determining a petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage is well 
established by judicial precedent. Elatos Restaurant Corp. v. Sava, 632 F. Supp. 1049, 1054 
(S.D.N.Y. 1986) (citing Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 
1984»; see also Chi-Feng Chang v. Thornburgh, 719 F. Supp. 532 (N.D. Texas 1989); K.c.P. Food 
Co., Inc. v. Sava, 623 F. Supp. 1080 (S.D.N.Y. 1985); Ubeda v. Palmer, 539 F. Supp. 647 (N.D. Ill. 
1982), ajf'd, 703 F.2d 571 (7th Cir. 1983). Reliance on the petitioner's gross sales and profits and 
wage expense is misplaced. Showing that the petitioner's gross sales and profits exceeded the 
proffered wage is insufficient. Similarly, showing that the petitioner paid wages in excess of the 
proffered wage is insufficient. 
In K.c.P. Food Co., Inc. v. Sava, 623 F. Supp. at 1084, the court held that the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, now CIS, had properly relied on the petitioner's net income figure, as stated 
on the petitioner's corporate income tax returns, rather than the petitioner's gross income. The court 
specifically rejected the argument that the Service should have considered income before expenses 
were paid rather than net income. See Taco Especial v. Napolitano, --- F. Supp. 2d. at *6 (gross 
profits overstate an employer's ability to pay because it ignores other necessary expenses). 
With respect to depreciation, the court in River Street Donuts noted: 
The AAO recognized that a depreciation deduction is a systematic allocation of 
the cost of a tangible long-term asset and does not represent a specific cash 
expenditure during the year claimed. Furthermore, the AAO indicated that the 
allocation of the depreciation of a long-term asset could be spread out over the 
years or concentrated into a few depending on the petitioner's choice of 
accounting and depreciation methods. Nonetheless, the AAO explained that 
depreciation represents an actual cost of doing business, which could represent 
either the diminution in value of buildings and equipment or the accumulation of 
funds necessary to replace perishable equipment and buildings. Accordingly, the 
AAO stressed that even though amounts deducted for depreciation do not 
represent current use of cash, neither does it represent amounts available to pay 
wages. 
We find that the AAO has a rational explanation for its policy of not adding 
depreciation back to net income. Namely, that the amount spent on a long term 
tangible asset is a "real" expense. 
River Street Donuts at 118. "[USCIS] and judicial precedent support the use of tax returns and the 
net income figures in determining petitioner's ability to pay. Plaintiffs' argument that these figures 
should be revised by the court by adding back depreciation is without support." Chi-Feng Chang at 
537 (emphasis added). 
Here, the petitioner has not submitted copies of tax returns, annual reports or audited financial 
statements for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that 
it had sufficient net income to pay the proffered wage in those years. Although the petitioner 
Page II 
submitted a letter dated July 9, 2007 indicating that it has the ability to pay the proffered wage, this 
letter is not from a financial officer. Accordingly, the letter does not comply with the regulations 
and does not carry any evidentiary weight. 8 C.F.R. §204.S(g)(2). Regardless, USC IS is not 
required to accept such letters in lieu of required evidence, especially when a petitioner has filed 
multiple petitions. See infra. 
If the net income the petitioner demonstrates it had available during that period, if any, added to the 
wages paid to the beneficiary during the period, if any, do not equal the amount of the proffered 
wage or more, USCIS will review the petitioner's assets. Net current assets are the difference 
between the petitioner's current assets and current liabilities.4 A corporation's year-end current 
assets are shown on Schedule L, lines 1 through 6 and include cash-on-hand. Its year-end current 
liabilities are shown on lines 16 through 18. If the total of a corporation's end-of-year net current 
assets and the wages paid to the beneficiary (if any) are equal to or greater than the proffered wage, 
the petitioner is expected to be able to pay the proffered wage using those net current assets. 
As noted above, the petitioner has not submitted copies of tax returns, annual reports or audited 
financial statements for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established that it had sufficient net current assets to pay the proffered wage in those years. 
Therefore, from the date the ETA Form 750 was accepted for processing by the DOL, the petitioner 
had not established that it had the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage as of 
the priority date through an examination of wages paid to the beneficiary, or its net income or net 
current assets. 
In addition, USCIS electronic records show that the petitioner filed several other 1-140 petitions 
which have been pending during the time period relevant to the instant petition. If the instant 
petition were the only petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner would be required to produce 
evidence of its ability to pay the proffered wage to the single beneficiary of the instant petition. 
However, where a petitioner has filed multiple petitions for multiple beneficiaries which have been 
pending simultaneously, the petitioner must produce evidence that its job offers to each beneficiary 
are realistic, and therefore that it has the ability to pay the proffered wages to each of the 
beneficiaries of its pending petitions, as of the priority date of each petition and continuing until the 
beneficiary of each petition obtains lawful permanent residence. See Matter of Great Wall, 16 I&N 
Dec. 142, 144-145 (Acting Reg. Comm. 1977) (petitioner must establish ability to pay as of the date 
of the Form MA 7-S0B job offer, the predecessor to the Form ETA 750 and Form ETA 9089). See 
also 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(2). The record in the instant case contains no information about the 
proffered wage for the beneficiaries of the other petitions filed by the petitioner, about the current 
immigration status of the beneficiaries, whether the beneficiaries have withdrawn from the visa 
petition process, or whether the petitioner has withdrawn its job offers to the beneficiaries. 
4According to Barron's Dictionary of Accounting Terms 117 (yd ed. 2000), "current assets" consist 
of items having (in most cases) a life of one year or less, such as cash, marketable securities, 
inventory and prepaid expenses. "Current liabilities" are obligations payable (in most cases) within 
one year, such accounts payable, short-term notes payable, and accrued expenses (such as taxes and 
salaries). [d. at 118. 
Page 12 
Furthermore, no information is provided about the current employment status of the beneficiaries, 
the date of any hiring and any current wages of the beneficiaries. Since the record in the instant 
petition fails to establish the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage to the single beneficiary of 
the instant petition, it is not necessary to consider further whether the evidence also establishes the 
petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiaries of the other petitions filed by the 
petitioner, or to other beneficiaries for whom the petitioner might wish to submit 1-140 petitions 
based on the same approved ETA Form 750 labor certifications. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
S U .S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.