dismissed EB-3 Case: Childcare

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 14907020 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Other Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 02, 2021 
The Petitioner, a steel piping products business, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a childcare worker. 
It requests classification of the Beneficiary as an unskilled worker under the third preference 
employment-based immigrant visa category. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(3)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b) (3)(A)(iii). This immigrant visa category allows a U.S. 
employer to sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent resident status to work in a position that 
requires less than two years of training or experience. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it had the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage, or that the job opportunity was 
bona.fide and open to qualified U.S. workers. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). The AAO reviews the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of 
Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the 
appeal. 
I. EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. To permanently fill a position 
in the United States with a foreign worker, a prospective employer must first obtain certification from 
the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(a)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5). DOL 
approval signifies that insufficient U.S. workers are able, willing, qualified, and available for a position. 
Id. Labor certification also indicates that the employment of a foreign national will not harm wages and 
working conditions of U.S. workers with similar jobs. Id. 
If DOL approves a position, an employer must next submit the certified labor application with an 
immigrant visa petition to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Among other things, USCIS considers whether a beneficiary meets the 
requirements of a certified position and a requested immigrant visa classification. lfUSCIS approves 
the petition, a foreign national may finally apply for an immigrant visa abroad or, if eligible, 
adjustment of status in the United States. See section 245 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner in this matter is a seller and distributor of steel piping products, established in 1999 and 
employing 13 individuals. The accompanying labor certification was filed on July 20, 2018. 1 
In this case, the accompanying labor certification describes the full-time, permanent offered position 
as childcare worker at the Petitioner's business address inl I Texas. The position does not 
require any education, training or experience. The labor certification states that the position requires 
a police background check upon employment, and two letters of reference. The proffered wage is 
listed as $17,306 per year, and the job duties of the position of childcare worker are described as: 
"Organize and monitor activities for children. Review and select food preparation. Entertain children 
by reading and playing games." 
After the petition's initial filing, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), noting that the initial 
evidence did not establish the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the 
priority date onward. Following review of the Petitioner's response to the RFE, the Director issued a 
notice of intent to deny (NOID), informing the Petitioner that it still had not established its continuing 
ability to pay the proffered wage. In his NOID, the Director noted two additional points. First, he 
stated that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary met the minimum requirements for 
the offered position because the record did not include evidence of a police background check 
completed for the Beneficiary upon employment. Second, he stated that the Petitioner had not 
established that the job opportunity was bona fide in that it was open and available to U.S. workers. 
In the NOTD, the Director outlined several factors that cast doubt that the Petitioner's job opportunity 
was bona fide. He noted that the requirement of a "police background check upon employment" 
indicated that the job offer was conditional, as the offer could be rescinded if a background check was 
not passed. He concluded that the Petitioner "created a condition where the Beneficiary is not capable, 
at the time of petitioning, of performing the unskilled labor listed on the labor certification." The 
Director further noted that a reference letter in the record demonstrated that the Beneficiary was a 
domestic employee providing childcare for children of the Petitioner's corporate officer, and that this 
preexisting relationship between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary cast doubt as to the Petitioner's 
intent to offer the position to a qualified U.S. worker. Finally, he noted that childcare services in Texas 
are regulated by Texas Health and Human Services and that the record did not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner met the licensing requirements to provide childcare services at its place of business. 
The Petitioner responded to the NOTD, submitting additional evidence of its continuing ability to pay 
the proffered wage in the totality of the circumstances, and addressing the Director's additional 
concerns. It asserted that the Director incorrectly interpreted the requirements of the position as listed 
on the labor certification and that a pre-employment background check for the Beneficiary was 
submitted and accepted with a prior filing. 2 It also asserted that the pre-existing employment 
1 The "priority date" of a petition is the date the underlying labor certification is filed with the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5( d). The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the petition have been satisfied as of the 
priority date. 
2 The Petitioner filed an earlier petition based on the same underlying labor certification. That petition was denied, in part 
2 
relationship between the Petitioner's officer and the Beneficiary did not affect the bona fide job 
opportunity in this matter. Finally, it asserted that it was not subject to Texas Health and Human 
Services licensing requirements for childcare providers because it "provides childcare services for four 
or fewer children at one time on an as-needed basis ... in short periods while the parents are working 
at the company's offices." It also provided evidence to establish the size of its office to demonstrate 
the availability of physical space for childcare on its premises. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the existence of 
a bona fide job opportunity at the offered location. The Director found that, in the totality of the 
circumstances, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it would have hired a qualified U.S. worker for 
the offered position, or that it "has the space, facilities, means or resources" to employ the Beneficiary 
in the offered position. He also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that it has the continuing 
ability to pay the proffered wage. 
A. Bona Fide Job Opportunity 
The petitioner has the burden of establishing that a bona fide job opportunity exists when it is asked 
to show that the job is clearly open to U.S. workers. See Matter of Amger Corp., 87-INA-545 (BALCA 
1987); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(1). 
In his decision the Director identifies two issues that led him to conclude that the Petitioner did not 
establish that a bona fide job opportunity exists. First, he states that the Petitioner "does not provide 
any meaningful discussion about the specific connection between the Beneficiary and ... President of 
the Petitioner, and the fact that the Beneficiary had been in the U.S. already working for the highest 
level manager of the Petitioner's business." Second, he states, "The Petitioner has not provided 
probative or relevant documentation establishing that it has the resources for the Beneficiary to provide 
childcare services at its ... location," or that "childcare services are required or necessary at its ... 
location." 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner addressed each element discussed in Matter of Modular 
Container System to determine whether a bona fide job opportunity exists. 3 However, he stated that 
the Petitioner's small size and its officer's preexisting relationship with the Beneficiary demonstrate 
that "there would not reasonably be any process preventing [the Petitioner's officer] from giving the 
because the Petitioner did not submit evidence of the Beneficiary's police background check. The Petitioner filed a motion 
to reopen and reconsider and provided a "Letter of Good Conduct" to verify completion of a police background check for 
the Beneficiary. In denying the Petitioner's motion on other grounds, the Director stated that "USCIS acknowledges the 
fact that the requirements [sic] for the 'police background check upon employment' has been satisfied." In denying the 
instant petition, the Director does not contradict this statement. 
3 The factors to be examined in determining whether a bona fide job opportunity exists are set forth in a decision by the 
Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals in Matter of Modular Container Systems, Inc. 89-INA-288 (BALCA 1991 ). 
Those factors include such items as whether the beneficiary (a) is in the position to control or influence hiring decisions 
regarding the job for which labor certification is sought; (b) is related to the corporate directors, officers, or employees; ( c) 
was an incorporator or founder of the company; ( d) has an ownership interest in the company; ( e) is involved in the 
management of the company; (f) is on the board of directors; (g) is one of a small number of employees; (h) has 
qualifications for the job that are identical to specialized or unusual job duties and requirements stated in the application; 
and (i) is so inseparable from the sponsoring employer because of his or her persuasive presence and personal attributes 
that the employer would be unlikely to continue in operation without the beneficiary. 
3 
Beneficiary preferential treatment over a U.S . worker ... , nor would there have been any other 
employee to challenge the decision to hire the Beneficiary ." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that its small size and the identification of the Beneficiary before the 
DOL required recruitment does not indicate a lack of bona fide job opportunity . The Petitioner 
provides evidence of its recruitment for the offered position, which it states resulted in no qualified 
applicants. It further asserts that it has more than sufficient space to perform childcare duties. 
Here, the Director's decision implies that, because the Petitioner identified the Beneficiary as a 
candidate for the offered position before beginning the recruitment phase of the labor certification 
process, the job offer was not bona fide. The Director specifically points to the previous employment 
relationship between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary. A labor certification employer must attest 
that "[t]he job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any U.S. worker." 20 C.F.R. § 626.10(c)(8). 
While the labor certification process requires a test of the labor market, the DOL regulations do not 
require an employer to establish how or why it selected the foreign national for the job opportunity. 
Rather , the employer must show that there "are not sufficient U.S. workers able, willing, qualified and 
availab le to accept the job opportunity in the area of intended employment and that employment of 
the foreign worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employe d 
U.S . workers ." See https ://www.dol.gov /agencies /eta/foreign-labor /programs /permanent. See also 20 
C.F.R. § 656.l(a) . Because of the design of the labor certification proce ss, every petitioner who files 
a labor certification has already identified a foreign national that they wish to hire prior to the required 
recruitment. The Petitioner ' s officer ' s existing personal association with the Beneficiary does not 
indicate that the job was not open to U.S. workers . What is relevant , however , is that the Petitioner 
followed DOL regulations in advertising for the job opportunity after identifying a foreign national 
for the position. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 656.17. 
Based on evidence in the record , including evidence submitted with the appeal, the Petitioner has 
documented that its efforts to recruit U.S. workers for its childcare worker position did not result in 
qualified applicants . It has further demonstrated that the Beneficiary is not in a position to control or 
influence hiring decisions , and that although she is one of a small number of employees , she is not so 
inseparable from the sponsoring employer that the employer would be unlikely to continue in 
operation without her. Thus , the Director erred in denying the petition for lack of a bona fide job 
opportunity due to the Petitioner's officer's employment of the Beneficiary as a domestic 
employee. We will therefore withdraw this portion of the Director's decision. 
A petitioner must establish that a job offer was realistic as of the priority date and that the offer 
remained realistic for each year thereafter , until a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence . See 
Matter of Great Wall, 16 I&N Dec. 142 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). A labor certification employer 
must attest that "[t]he job opportunity's terms , conditions and occupational environment are not 
contrary to Federal , state or local law"). 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c)(7); see also Matter off- Corp., Adopted 
Decision 2017-02 (AAO Apr. 12, 2017) (barring approvals of visa petitions based on illegal or 
otherwise invalid employment agreements). Additionally, the job offer must be for a permanent and 
full-time position. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 656 .3; 656.lO(c)(l0) . DOL precedent establishes that full-time 
means at least 35 hours or more per week. See Memo , Farmer, Admin. for Reg'l. Mngm ' t., Div. of 
Foreign Labor Certification , DOL Field Memo No. 48-94 (May 16, 1994). 
4 
As the Director noted in the NOID, childcare services in Texas are regulated by Texas Health and 
Human Services. 4 While certain programs and facilities are exempt from the licensing requirement 
under section 745.113 of the Texas Administrative Code, a request for exemption must be approved. 5 
The record does not include evidence that the Petitioner has been approved by Texas Health and 
Human Services for a licensing exemption or that the Petitioner is not required to request the 
exemption. Therefore, we cannot affirmatively conclude that the job opportunity is bona fide and that 
the Petitioner is legally able to offer childcare services at its location. 
The Petitioner states in the NOID response that it does not require a license because it is a program of 
limited duration under section 745.117 of the Texas Administrative Code. Specifically, the Petitioner 
points to section 42.041 (b )(3) of the Texas Human Resources Code, which states that the licensing 
requirements do not apply to: 
a facility that is operated in connection with a shopping center, business, religious 
organization, or establishment where children are cared for during short periods while 
parents or persons responsible for the children are attending religious services, 
shopping, or engaging in other activities, including retreats or classes for religious 
instruction, on or near the premises, that does not advertise as a child-care facility or 
day-care center, and that informs parents that it is not licensed by the state. 
However, the Texas Administrative Code requires that a licensing exemption be requested and 
granted. The criteria for licensing exemption for programs of limited duration is set forth in a table 
attached to section 745.117. 6 The criteria specifically state that, to qualify for this exemption "a child 
may only be in care for up to four and one half hours per day, and for up to 12 hours per week." The 
exemption criteria is inconsistent with the Petitioner's claim that the offered position is for full-time 
employment (at least 35 hours per week). A petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). 
On appeal the Petitioner reiterates its assertion that it has sufficient space for the Beneficiary to 
perform the duties of childcare worker. The Petitioner provides copies of the amendments to its lease 
to demonstrate the square footage of leased office space. Although this evidence demonstrates the 
amount of physical space available, the Petitioner has not established its legal ability to offer childcare 
services at its location in Texas. The Director specifically noted in his decision that the Petitioner 
"does not actually provide any information about how many of [its] ... current staff members have 
children to care for ... as described by the labor certification." The Petitioner does not provide these 
details on appeal. 
Here, the Petitioner has not established that it is licensed to provide childcare, or that it has been 
granted an exemption from state licensing requirements. Further, because the state regulation under 
4 26 Tex. Admin. Code §745.31; see also Texas Health and Human Services, Child Care Licensing, 
https ://hhs. texas. gov/ doing-business-hhs/provider-portals/protective-services-providers/ child-care-. 
5 See 26 Tex. Admin. Code §745.131 (requiring a description of the program on an exemption form and additional 
documentation to verify the program meets the criteria for exemption). 
6 See Texas Administrative Code, Which programs of limited duration are exempt f,-om Licensing regulation?, 
https://texreg.sos.state. tx.us/fids/201200484-2.html. 
5 
which the Petitioner claims to be exempt from a license limits the number of hours per week that 
childcare may be provided, and because the Petitioner states that childcare will be provided only on 
an "as-needed basis," we cannot affirmatively conclude that the offered position is a bona fide job 
opportunity for full-time employment. Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal on this basis. 
B. Ability to Pay the Proffered Wage 
A petitioner must demonstrate its continuing ability to pay a proffered wage, from a petition's priority 
date until a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). Evidence of 
ability to pay must include copies of annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements. 
Id. 
In determining ability to pay, USCIS examines whether a petitioner paid a beneficiary the full 
proffered wage each year from a petition's priority date. If a petitioner did not annually pay the full 
proffered wage, USCIS next examines whether it generated sufficient annual amounts of net income 
or net current assets to pay any difference between the proffered wage and wages paid. If net income 
and net current assets are insufficient, USCIS may consider other factors affecting a petitioner's ability 
to pay a proffered wage. See Matter o/Sonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612, 614-15 (Reg'l Comm'r 1967).7 
As noted above, the accompanying labor certification has a priority date of July 20, 2018 and the 
annual proffered wage of the offered position of childcare worker is $17,306. The Petitioner does not 
assert that it has employed the Beneficiary and the record does not contain evidence that it paid her 
any wages at any time. 
If a petitioner does not establish that it has paid the beneficiary an amount equal to or above the 
proffered wage from the priority date onward, USCIS will examine the net income and net current 
assets figures recorded on the petitioner's federal income tax retum(s), annual report(s), or audited 
financial statements(s). If either of these figures, net income or net current assets, equals or exceeds 
the proffered wage or the difference between the proffered wage and the amount paid to the beneficiary 
in a given year, the petitioner would ordinarily be considered able to pay the proffered wage that year. 
For a C Corporation, like the Petitioner, net income (or loss) is recorded on page 1, line 28, of 
the Form 1120, and net current assets (or liabilities) are recorded in Schedule L as the difference 
between current assets listed on lines 1-6 and current liabilities listed on lines 16-18. 
The record includes a copy of the Petitioner's 2018 Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, 
reflecting a net income of-$157,970 and net current assets of-$2,931,569. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
had not established its ability to pay the proffered wage from the 2018 priority date based on its tax 
return. 
The record includes additional evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage, including 
2018 audited financial statements for~--------~; the Petitioner's bank statements for 
7 Federal courts have upheld our method of determining a petitioner's ability to pay a proffered wage. See. e.g.. River St. 
Donuts. LLC v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 111, 118 (1st Cir. 2009); Estrada-Hernandez v. Holder, 108 F. Supp. 3d 936, 942-43 
(S.D. Cal. 2015); Rizvi v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec., 37 F. Supp. 3d 870, 883-84 (S.D. Tex. 2014), ajf"'d, 627 Fed. App'x. 
292 (5th Cir. 2015). 
6 
October 2019 to January 2020; the Petitioner's Forms 941, Quarter Federal Tax Return, for 2018 and 
2019; and, a printout of the Petitioner's business information report froml I showing 
24 months of data from June 2018. 
The financial statements include an organizational chart indicating that ~--------~ controls 75.05% of the Petitioner. The statements do not provide a breakdown of the finances of the 
Petitioner individually or establish that! . 0 0 I is willing or financially obligated to 
contribute to the Petitioner. Because a corporation is a separate and distinct legal entity from its 
owners and shareholders, the assets of its shareholders or of other enterprises or corporations cannot 
be considered in determining the petitioning corporation's ability to pay the proffered wage. See 
Matter of Aphrodite Investments, Ltd., 17 I&N Dec. 530 (Comm'r 1980). In a similar case, the court 
in Sitar v. Ashcroft, 2003 WL 22203713 (D.Mass. Sept. 18, 2003) stated, "nothing in the governing 
regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5, permits [USCIS] to consider the financial resources of individuals or 
entities who have no legal obligation to pay the wage." 
Additionally, the Petitioner's monthly bank statements do not conclusively establish the Petitioner's 
continuing ability to pay. Bank statements show the amount in an account on a given date and cannot 
show the sustainable ability to pay an annual proffered wage. Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown 
that the money in its bank account constitutes a financial resource separate and apart from the current 
assets as recorded in Schedule L of its federal income tax return. 
The Dun & Bradstreet report states that its assessment of the Petitioner is "stable," with "likelihood of 
continued operations," and "moderate potential for severely delinquent payments." The "maximum 
credit recommendation" shown on the report is $15,000. The Petitioner asserts that the report 
demonstrates payments of its business debts in excess of the proffered wage. However, the Petitioner 
does not explain how it could defer payment of these debts in favor of the proffered wage, or that these 
debts were not accounted for on its tax return. Assertions made without supporting documentation are 
of limited probative value and do not carry the weight to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof See 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that Schedule K of its 2018 tax return reflects a net operating loss 
(NOL) carryover of $712,894. The NOL deduction is an exception to the general income tax rule that 
a taxpayer's taxable income is determined on the basis of its current year's events. This deduction 
allows the taxpayer to offset one year's losses against another year's income. The NOL for a 
company can generally be used to recover past tax payments or reduce future tax payments. When 
carried back, the NOL reduces the taxable income of the relevant earlier year, resulting in a 
recomputation of the tax liability and a refund or credit of the excess amount paid. Carryovers produce 
a similar reduction in the taxable income of later years, and this reduces the tax payable when the 
return is filed. The primary purpose of the NOL deduction is to ameliorate the effect of the annual 
accounting period by treating businesses with widely fluctuating income more nearly in accord with 
steady-income businesses. 
If a corporation carries forward its NOL, it enters the carryover on Schedule K, Form 1120, line 12. 
It also enters the deduction for the carryover on line 29(a) of Form 1120. 8 However, the carryover 
8 Line 29(a) of the Petitioner's tax return states, '·Statement 5," and lists the amount "O." Statement 5 is not included in 
the record. 
7 
cannot be more than the corporation's taxable income after special deductions. See 26 C.F.R. § 1.172-
4 and 26 C.F.R. §1.172-5. See also Corporations, I.R.S. Pub. No. 542, at 15-16 (2019), 
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p542.pdf. Because a petitioner's NOL is related to another year's 
outcome, it should be omitted from the analysis of the petitioner's "bottom line" ability to pay the 
proffered wage in a certain year. USCIS disregards NOL in C corporations by using Line 28 (taxable 
income before NOL deduction and special deductions) of the IRS Form 1120 in our computation of 
net income. 
USCIS may also consider the totality of the Petitioner's circumstances, including the overall 
magnitude of its business activities, in determining the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. 
See Matter of Sonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612 (Reg'! Comm'r 1967). USCIS may, at its discretion, 
consider evidence relevant to the petitioner's financial ability that falls outside of its net income and 
net current assets. We may consider such factors as the number of years the petitioner has been doing 
business, the established historical growth of the petitioner's business, the petitioner's reputation 
within its industry, the overall number of employees, whether the beneficiary is replacing a former 
employee or an outsourced service, the amount of compensation paid to officers, the occurrence of 
any uncharacteristic business expenditures or losses, and any other evidence that USCIS deems 
relevant to the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. 
The Petitioner asserts that its 2018 tax return reflects salaries and wages paid of more than $1.3 million 
and its quarterly tax returns reflect average wages per quarter of more than $250,000 to at least nine 
employees. While these are substantial amounts, the record does not include the Petitioner's tax 
returns outside of 201 7 and 2018. 9 Although it claims over 20 years of successful business operations, 
the Petitioner's unsupported testimonial evidence does not establish its claims or overcome evidence 
of two years of net losses and negative assets. The record lacks corroborating documentation of the 
Petitioner's historical growth, such as financial reports or tax records beyond the two years of tax 
returns in the record showing only losses. Nor does the record include evidence of unusual or 
unexpected business expenses or losses in any year. The record therefore does not support the 
Petitioner's assertion and we cannot affirmatively conclude that, in the totality of the circumstances, 
the Petitioner has the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage. 
We note that where a petitioner has filed I-140 petitions for multiple beneficiaries, it must demonstrate 
that its job offer to each beneficiary is realistic, and that it has the ability to pay the proffered wage to 
each beneficiary. See Patel v. Johnson, 2 F.Supp.3d 108, 124 (D. Mass. 2014) (affirming our 
revocation of a petition's approval where, as of the filing's grant, a petitioner did not demonstrate its 
ability to pay the combined proffered wages of multiple petitions). USCIS records show that the 
Petitioner has filed at least three Form I-140 petitions for other beneficiaries. Thus, in any further 
filings, the Petitioner must establish its ability to pay this Beneficiary as well as the beneficiaries of 
the other Form I-140 petitions that were pending or approved as of, or filed after, the priority date of 
the current petition. 
9 We note that the Petitioner's 2017 tax return reflects net loss of-$ I 82,887 and net cunent assets of -$2,869,424. 
8 
III. CONCLUSION 
It is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Sldrball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, 
the Petitioner has not established that the job opportunity is bona fide because it has not demonstrated 
that it is licensed to provide childcare services, or that it is exempt from any licensing requirement. 
The Petitioner has also not established that the offered position is for full-time employment or that it 
has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the Beneficiary as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2), as 
well as to the beneficiaries of its other petitions. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9