dismissed EB-3 Case: Culinary

*- ~~. .. ~ -- 
seciiorl20?(b)(3) of rhe irnmigra.tiorl and Naii~nali~ hct, 8 [j,~,[_'., 3 1153fi)j3) 
INS TRtiC:lj(JNS: 
'1'111s is thc decision of the kd~s;inistrali\~@ .4~peais (.)fi>ce in yorir case. All documents I~avt. bee11 
i-et:;rned to the oj:fice thar originally decided your case. ,4ny fi3rtir.w incj~!iry n.rusl he n-\ade ti) that 
office. 
DPSQ:USSIOX: 'The pr-efesence visa petitro:~ ixias der:ied hy the Director. Vermont Service Ceilter, ar?d is 
now beibre the i?\,;lministratiw Appeals Office oc appeal. 'B'he appeal will he dismissed. 
,- , 
Ehe peiitjoxtx is a restaurant. li seeks to ernpioy the beneficiary pemana~t!y in the United States as an Itil~an 
speciaiiy cook. As required by statuce. the petition is accompzr:ied hy a Fo~x ETA 750, ,9pplicatttior? fbr 
iPIiert EmpIoymel-it Certjficaiion, approved l>y the 1). S. Departrneni of Labor. 'The director determined that 
the p~rtrtioner had not estahil,:ished that it had the ci~zttnuir~g ibi1it.j io pay rhe beneticiary the proffered wage 
lregiilrlli-ig on the prior~ty date of the visa petition. The direc:~~ derried the petition accordingly. 
Section 283(b'j(3)(Aj(i) of the Immig-ation and Naiicmality Act (the Act), 8 1J.S.C. 5 l l53(bj(,3)(A))!i). 
proi.ides for xhe granting of preference ctassj5cation io quahi-jed irnn~i~ants who are capable, at the time of 
petitioning fbr classification tinder this paragraph. of perf'o~ming skilled labor (requiring at least two years 
iraining or e.xperience), not of a tttmporaq nature, for which qualified workers clre not available in t?~e t7nitt.d 
States. 
Abiiily c?f p~i;ipc?r'fi~:~ f:rq~?/~g,t'r ?O pi<!) ?tJage. 
 Any pedtion flied by or for an 
employmerit-ad immigrant ivhict~ requires an offer of ei~~pioyment nust he 
accompailiei? by evidence that ihe prospective United States e~~ploye!- has the ability 
to pay the proffered wage. The petirioner m~st dernor?strate this ability ai the rilne 
:he p~iority date is es.rahlisl-ied and corrtinuii-ig ~rntil the heneGciary ol3tair:s Iaw5~l 
pcnnanerit residence. Evid-erict: CP~ &is ability slull he irr the hn-m of copies of ani:uaI 
reports, Me!-al tax retun-IS, or audrtee Gnzicial staiensents. 
'i'he reguJa:iorl ;it 8 CFR 9 204.5{i)(3)(ii) states. in p~ckent part: 
(A) Gmen:l. 
 Any ~equirensents crf training or experience for sh!led workers, 
prc'c"&ssionnls, or other workers lnrtst 'x axppurted by leaers kom trair:ers or el-t~pioyers 
~iving the nanse, address, mxld title of the kainer or ernpioyer. and a de~';rir)tmn of the 
... 
training received or the exp+ence of the afizn. 
{B) .Yk!'lIcd ~!i>~ke~s. 
If d~e pelirio~s is for a skilled u~orker. the petitior, nrl-lst be 
acci?nlpanieci by evidence *at the alieri meets :he educational, training or er<pcrience. 
and a:]y other requireme;:ts of the individual labor ce:tiGcarion, nmts ilie reqilircmeats 
for Schedule 1% desig~sticsn, or meets the rrzqrliremmts fhr the I.,a'uor Market l[~&>n~~atii-,n 
Pjlui Rogranr occupation desigrraiicsn. The n~inirnurn req~~iren~enls fnr this 
classi~icatiun are at least 'r\vi> years of tr-nining ccr experience. 
The peiiiioner tr~ust clernot:swa~e the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on tl~e priority 
dare, dlic1-i is fhe date the Form ETA 750 hpplicatioi? for Alien Err~;,ioyrneni. Crtr'titic~ion, was a~i.~~;-(ated fctr 
processing by any crrftjce within the employme;:t s;;stem of the 1l.S. B3epar-tmetlt of Labor. The petitioner must 
also derr:onstrate that, rrrl the pfiont~~ ;idate, the beneficiary had tlse qiialifications stated on its Fornr E?'A 750 
ilpplicatisn .for Alien Empioymen~ C'ceitlcation as ceriiijed hy the U.S. Departt-t~eni or" I..ahnr 3rd sublaitted with 
ihc. i~st-ant petition. ilfirlret. iij'IYi/ing's 7ki: I-iotae, 16 I&N Dec. i 58 (Act. Reg. <:o~~~in. 19'77). 
Page 3 
1Izre. fht. Form k'l A 750 wa< accepted on rZI)ni 30, 2001 ' Thc pruffercd sage a.i stated on the Form ETA 
" - 
130 IS $1 3. i 7 per hotlr (S27,_793.60 pcr- year). Tile F03i ETA 7X0 spate5 that the po<itrc~n rcqurre5 tvSro \,e;trs 
experlc7!-Ich'. 
Cln appeal, ccrunsel submits a legal br-iel" ar;d additionai evidence 
C:o~-rnsei states on appeal that the director's decision ws " . . . based soie1y on ... tile petitioner's 2001 'i'ax 
rtetun~,,they [sic) listed a net income of -$I ,574.Oi~:'' Ihe petitioner subn~itted tax i-eiurils for years 2001 and 
2irC!2, including other &i?n;mcial ir.,r;);~;liatioi:. 
Tl~e Ah0 rzr;7ietvs appeals 011 a de novo basis. See IPor 1;. IhE, 89 I F.24 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) It is 
worth emphasizing that that each petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record. Sce 8 C.F.R. 3 
103.8(J), %.1 making a determinatiorr of stn.tutory eligibility, CIS is iirnited to the infomation contained in the 
record of proceeding. 
 See t.r C.F.R. ,$ 103.E(b)(lrj)(ii). 
 'f'his d~scussion is based upor) the record of 
proceeding. 
C:o~msel states c?n appeal that dej?reciariori and amorlizatiorr deductions. and, the totality cjf av;iilable 
irli'ornzatiorl can be used as evider~ce nf :he ability tcr pay the proffered wage. Csriarlsel cites several 
alnpubi~shed !$A0 cases for proposrtioris that, accorditlg tc? cou:.isel, depreciation and amor-tization' 
established ihe ability io pay. tr'ihile 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(c) provides !hat preceder-tt decisions of CIS are hindin$ on 
all its employees it: the administration of the Act, urlpublished decisions are riot similarly bindi~g. Precec1e:nt 
decisions HIL~S~ be desigmdted and pvibljshed in bi~ilird vo1un1e~ or as rrrterirn decrsiorls, M C2.R. 3 103.9(a;~ 'Tile 
A,40 revieily.s sppeals on n de rlovo hasis, See I1.j~ v. ii'ir,ii. 891 F.24 997, 10(42 n. 9 (2d Cir. 19X9). Each oT 
counsel's contentions has bee11 discrissed 21ereit-t. Each case ix~ist he revie~ved uyijn its owrr merits, and each 
case has its oun pafiicular fact situation. 
C.:oul?sel ajso asserts that cotripensatroll to [hi. o;rvrr:ers of the petitroner and its offjcers car1 be utilized to pay 
&he profired IVnge. Cotjnsel contel-rds that the heneficia~i replaced anoher cook ~xl~sil salar)i " . . . was also 
consistently paid f'or several years.?> 
Wtth the peS-tim, coiinjel subrxitted copies uC the following docurnenis: the original Fornr It;,'I',4 750, 
App!ication f'or Alien Enlp1o:yrnent Ceriification, approved by the 1.J.S. Departnzent of I,ahor: 1i.S. Internal 
.Revenue Se:%;ice I:orn? pix returns I'or 2001 and 2002; ;1 Form Q7-2 Wage and Tax Statement for 2001; 
statements of employees wages pail1 to the Stare of New Jersey for 2001 arld 2002: and, copies of 
documentation concerr~tng the beneficinrg..'~ qualifications as \%el as other docun:entation. 
$he director denied ;he pet:iioi~ on October 19, 2004. finding tbt the evidcr~ce submritezl did r:ot establisl~ 
that the petitio;.l.er had the continuing abili':y in pay the proffered wage beginning on the prionly ciaie. 
- 
J. 
 Ir has lseei~ appri?ximately tue years since the Alieu Ernpioyment Applicaticwt lras beer? accepted and the 
13;-offered wage est;13lished. According tcr t.he eri:plo:ycr certificatior~ hat is part ofrhs application. E'I'/S Form 
7561 Part A, Section 23 b,, states "'The \vagr offered eq~.ials or exceeds the prevailing wage and I [tJse 
employer] guarantee that, if a labor ce!tificafion is gr,.rantccrl, the wage paid tcr the alict~ ~vhen the alierl begirrs 
work wig equal o-r excced Qle prevailing wage v:llich is applicable at the time the dien begirls ~vo>rk." 
2 
 IntangibIt. assets ctr; a balanci: sheet arc i:lcl:.ided as "o!.?lcr rtsszts" and they are amortized over a tern1 air 
itears. Arr?.o:h>:ation 1s the eqnivale~it oi'sIepreciatio!: for those intangibles. 
C>n apl.sea!, counsel assefls does have the atrjlity to i>ii>i the proffered wage. 
C:or!risel 11as s~bl-tlitted the fbIlox,ving documents to accompany the appeal statement: a legal memi?randum, 
and, State o-f New Jersey staiements c~f wages. 
In determining the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage d:jring a given period, U.S. ('iiizenship 3ild 
Immigration Services (CIS) will first exanline whether the petitioner smployed and paid the be!let'iciary 
during that period. If the petitioner estahli:;!~es by docun:entary evidence that it ernployed tht: beneficiary at a 
salq equal to or grearer than <he j:trofi'ered wage, the 'evidence will be considered prima .$reie proof of the 
petitioner's ahility to pay the proffered wage. Evidence was s~bmitted to show that the petitioner employed 
the beneficiary since Januayi 2201. The petitioner pard. tile benekiary $1 5,262.55 in 2001, and. $25,650.56 
in 2081. 
r?i.lternatively, in determining the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage, CIS will exailline the net 
inci?nx figure reflected on 'L71e petitrol~er's federal Income tax return, withotrt cc~~tsideratiorr of deprecration or 
other expenses. Reliance cm fcderai income tax returns ';IS 2 basis for deterrriinjng a petitioner's ability to pay 
the proffered wage is we';! established by judicial precedent. Bi(~ro,~ Ri:,sttinmnt Gorp. \I. S~rva, 632 F.Supp. 
1049. 1054 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (citing 7bngufi~plr iTon~fct.izjfi N;rrzaii, tril. I?. F~'l~lij:i~n: 736 F.2d 2395 , (9th Clr. 
1984) j; see aiscr Chi-Feng C'hung 1'. ?Y;ov?~K!~t*:p'>, 7 1 9 F.Supp. 532 (N.D. '1-exas 1989.1; K. C, Y. Funi! <'I>., hc 
v, S"ki~, 623 F.Supp. IfbSO (S.D.N.Y. 1985); Uheiirr LC Paltrier, 539 F.Supp. 647 (N.D. 111. 18821, aff7d, '703 
F.2d 57 4 ('It71 Cir. 1 Y 83 1. hl LC: C.B. .Food Cb., ir?i:. v. Sa:l~k, the court held tkit the Selvice had properly relied 
on the prztrdoner's net income figure, as srated on the petitioner's corporate inrnl~le tax returns, rac'ler illan the 
peiitioner's gross income. Supru at 1084. Co~msel cuntel~ds that gross sales and gross pmfirs are evidence of 
rhe ability to pay the proffered wage. 'T'he court specifically r-ejected the argilmnt that CIS sihoirId have 
considered income before expenses were paid ~atker ihan net mcorne. Finall:y, 1-10 precedent exists that svouic? 
ailow the petitioner to "add back to net cash the depreciation expense c'ilarged for the yea." C'iri-I?~ng CCJzaiig 
v. ??lsnthurgh, Su;,rcr at 5 3 7. See aIso Elirtcis Kez:~azrnnzf Gorp. 3,. ,?UY~, Szpra at 1054. 
The tax rerrlrlis detnorrskated the fc5t:irlloiving fir~ancial infc~:srrrnat!on concerning the petitioner's ability to pay the 
proffered tmge of $27,393.60 per year fr-rrrri ihe priority date (of Aprii 30,2001: 
* 
 ln 2001. the Forrr. I120 stated taxable ii7corne joss3 of ~3;1,574.00>." 
r 
 In 2002, the Forr?; 1120 stared l;lxable incorrre loss 1sf::$;33,962.0ib. 
'file pe.lrtioner's :let crinent assets can l~e considered it1 the dctem~ination sf tile ability to pay the proffered 
wage eespeciaiiy \.;hen there is a fdilul-e iif il~e petit~nl-ter to demorzstrate !hat it has taxable I~ICCPSZ~C 10 pay the 
proffered wage, In tl~e subject case, as set f<>rti: above, the petitioner did not have taxable irlcon~e s~lfficient to 
pay tile profft:rcd wage 2: any time betv~eitr~ the years 2001 through 3002 hi. xcihich the petitioner's tax rchrns 
are offered for evi~ience. 
(IXS wiil corisider frel c~~re171 il.CS/'iS as an a!!ematitre n-tethod of den-to~lstrslting the ability to pay t1:e proffered 
" 
 IRS Form 1 120, Line 2s. 
4 7 
The sytnbols ,:(A ,jum!?er:. indicate a ~-[egatlve number, crr rn the conter't of 3 tax  elu urn or ~tht'i' 
financia! sraten;ent, a loss, that is below zero. 
wage. Net cim-cnt assrrs are the difft'renc.e 'oeiween the petitioner's current assets and cun-erie Irabi!irres." ,4 
corporation's year-end c~irrc?~t assets are s'coxii/~\ on ScheiSuk L, Iir~es I through 6. That schcdule is I~ciuded 
viiih. as in this instance, d:e petitioner's filing of' Foml 11 20 federal tax retunx. The peiitioner's year-e::d 
cai-serlt liabilities ctre shoim on tines 16 thrasgh 18. If a ci~rpor;ilion's exld-of-year net: c~rrent ass~ts arc eqxa.af 
ro or greater &::an the proffkrzd wage, the petitioner is expected io be able to pay ci:e profikred wage. 
I;xam;r3irig the Form 1120 U.S. Incorrle I'ax Rcttlrns su'm:itted by thr pei~t~oner, Sched~lle k found In each oi 
th~~se rctunrs rnd!cates the fol~owrr:g: 
+ 
 Bn 26)liI, petitioner's Fom 1120 return stated cur-rent assets of 55,87C1.00 ai~d 
$6,271.00 rn ci;r~-erg liabilities. 'Therefore. the penitiit!~er had c:f395.OCb in net 
zuxent assets. Since the p~~ffercd wage is $27.393.60 per year, t!~is sum rs less 
than tlre proffered wage. 
a 
 liir 2002, petitioner's Fom~ l i20 reL3rn stated c::rrer?t assets sf $8,345.00 and 
S9,Y#0.00 in cuslent liabilit-ies. 'T'herefore, :he peiitio~nrr had <$I ,GsS.OO>" in net 
cu~cnt asscis, Sir;ce the p~oiired wage is $27,393.60 per yeax, this sum is less 
than the prijffered wage. 
'Fherefore. ibr U7.e pet-wd 2001. ikrough ?003 tLon~ the date the Fonn ETA 750 was accepted for processing by 
the U. S. alepal-trnent crrf H,abor, tlsr pciirii?ncr had not e~iablislzed tllrit it had the nbility to pay the beneficiary 
ihe proffa-ed wage at the time of filing t11rougi.i an mamination of its net c:lrrent assets. 
Counsel asserts in his brief accol~~panying the appeal that drere are i3tller ways to determine the petitioner's 
irbillty to pay the proKered wage from the priority date. According to regula!,ian,? copies ctf annual ~eports, 
i-kderal tax returns, or audited fk~ancial staienxnts arc the [mans by \vhrclr petitioner's ability ti:, pay is 
delerrrGncd. 
Petitioner's corlr~sel advocates the addition of depreciation in the amount of $13,388.80 in 3001. including 
depreciarron at16 amot.tization taken as deductions in tax returns to elinninate on. reduce the abovementioned 
deficiencies. Since depreciation is n deduction in the calcu1rititic~-t of taxable income oa tax Form 1120, this 
method would eliminate depreciation as a factc?r tri the calculation oT taxable itlcome. 
'v~ r ,lirrl. rs esiahiisl~ed legal precedent against counsel's cuntaltirm that depreciatior~ may be a sawce to pay the 
*, 
proffered wage. 7'he corx-t in Cili-i;;?ng <:"hang I., Thor,tbzirg, / 19 F. Supp. 532 (N.D. 'T'ex. 1089) noted: 
PiaintiTfs alsi) coxitend that depreciatrr~n amounts on the 1985 and 1986 returns are 
non-cash dediiciions. Plainti- thus request that the court r;ua z;izorsrc: add hack to 
net cash the depreciation expenst charged for the year. 131ai~~tiffs cite fin k~al 
.T.. 
alithority ti,r this prc,position, 
 r his argu!nrnr !-ias Iike~ise been preserlteci before 
- 
&cci:!:ding to flnr,r.iin '.s Dlcriojlitr./ qf Ac~:Q:cT~~~N~?. T~nn.r 11 7 (3"' ed. 200C)), "current assers" coi~sis~ oi" itenls 
having jrn =tist eases) a life ~~pf' orie year or less, sic!? as cash, marketabie secw-ites: inventory and p!-qaid 
expc[lsk "rC:arreni liabilities" are ob!igarloris payable (in lrwst cases) withirl one year, such as accc?w:is 
, . 
pa:;ai,ie, sh~r(-te:t:l notes ~ayabie, arid accrued expenses (sl;ch as taxes a;~d salaries), M. at I 18. 
i;, 
Ti;e syi&~!s c:~: tlr:niher.:, indicate a negative -rl~-imber. or in the conte;cr oC a tax return or otke~ I'iinancial 
s!aterne:it, :* loss, 1!1at is Iselow ,zero. 
4; C'.f:.R. 9 204.5(~)(2). 
and rejected. 
 See Ekatm, 632 F. Sugp. at iOSJ. 
 (CIS:! and jtldjcial preceijm: 
sup1:tori tile us< of tax ~et,ttrrns arrd the ni.1 inccrnteJigis in deterizining petitioner's 
ability to pay. Plarntiff~' argrirnent that ihesz figures should be rrvised b:y tkir cc::~tri 
by adding back depreclaiion is ~ithi?~t support. (Qrrginal exnphasis.) C'fti-Fcng at 
537. 
As stated above. fbllijwing esrablished lega! precedent, CIS relied on the petitioner's net income without 
cn~ssiderarion ofc any delxeciation deductions, in tts dete~miisations of the ability to pay rile proffered wage 09 
and afier ihe priority date. 
Counsel contends the gross saks together- wit31 pay~o!f arnoirnts paid by the petitioner incitlding the wages 
paid to the beneficiary Iends credence tc:s the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. As already stated 
ahove: in K.CC.P. Food CO.. htc. I.,. lSma, thc cix.~rt held that ihe Service had properly relied an the petitioner's 
., I~L~ s income figtire, as stated on the petitio-t~er.'~ corporate tncumt tax returns. rather than the petitloneis gross 
incon-~e. ,Yu!~ru at 7084. 'Fhe co~irt specifically rejected the argmtilt that tile INS: nov,. CIS, shou!d have 
considered lncorne before expelsses were paid rather than net income. The suggestion that expecses shi>mld be 
treated as assets avaiiabiuie t~ pay the prcs.ffered wage is not persuasive. Wages paid to otl-rers csrmot be used to 
prove the ability rhe abil~ty to pay the prcrffered wage. 
C. d~1 .,n.- 5tl .,. cor:ienifs that officer compensation may be a-vaiiahle to pay die prorfcered wage. Course1 oi'le~ed no 
evidence ts support this conlention. No officer con:pensation was statctd on the two tax returns submitted. 
I-lowever, in years 2(iOI, ilie salary paid by the petitiur:er to i'rie owner and his w-if? 'i.).as $23,900.0f3 and 
$6,300.01). Srr.ii:e r'ne business suffered a totaled loss of S35,SSQ.(50 f'ur years 2001 and 2002, it is not credible 
that the owzers of the business .wo::ld accepi only 8 rlcjmirlal sum fcsr coi:ipensaiion from the business after- 
paying the proffered wage in a I>usi~:ess tl~t I-ras no taxable incoizse and in hct had Iosses for rhe two ;;ears 
exan.lined. 
d_'c>unsef contct!ids that the beneficiary repiaced antrtvlher cook whose salary " . . . was also consistentty paid for 
SeVera~ yea'.c . .' Ci?nnseI did not disclose the salapj paid fbr the fbrmer position but asserts that !IIC busirless 
has eriough ftlnds to ''l3a.i the citffere?ntial i!? salary required.'" 
 Going on reci>rct .withoui supporting 
doci!rr?entasy evidence is not sufi:icieni for ptlrpo~es of n~eeting :he burden of proof 111 these pi-oceedings. 
:Uoner ~$'Si$ici, 31 I&N Dcc. ijX? 165 (Cornrn. 1998) (citing /V~ttcr oj' 'i:i.ea.srare C'r4 cif.Crrtip;,mil:r, 14 
i&N Dec. !!I0 (Keg. Cnmm. 197%)). %'fi'iihout documentary evide~lce to sirpporr the claim, the assertioris of 
counsel will not satisfy the petitionm's b~rrdeil of' pri>u'r: The unsupported assertions of cou~~sel do not 
consliiirtc evidence. h.Jdtcr c;i*Clhnigb<rriu, 19 I&-% Dee. 533. 534 (BlA 1988); !Va"clter ~y"La:ircc/no, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1 (BIA 1983): Mtrlt'er qf" Iia!t~ircr.u-Sri.~~cAoz. 17 I&N ?>ec. 503, 506 iBlA 1980). 'The unsul~tported 
statements of counsel nil appeal or in a nlotlon are not evidence and rbus are not entitled to any eviden:lasy 
weight. See IiYL5' lf. I'hi/ipc~th-ila, 464 I!.S. 183, 188-89 11.6 (1984); !;"rxfte.r nf Rcnnir~z-,j',rnc:Jicfz7 17 l&N 13cc. 
503 (SBA I Y 80 ). 
'Irr rhe totalrty oof'alj the evidenct' sub~~U?;teil in r.i:is case, there is evidence to den~o~sstmte that the petitiorler's 
busirless was in an \mprorofEtable ptrnod ~rr 2001 and 2002. For the years 2001 tll-sough 2002, the taxable 
incnnx fi:tr the, petitioner decreased from -($1 ,U4.Oii-'- to 4533,962.0(!'-,. 'The net cun-rrrt asset vni~ie fin- tisirtse 
years is also rtcgative, <$i95.0.0:;, anif -:$.I ,655.01D in net c~rrrent assets sespectivzly in years 2001 and 2002. 
,%ftrni:r. qf ,Sr!ricg.:,/ii.;.irr, 12 I&.N Dec. 612 (BZA li167;). ~e!ates to petitions filed during unckiaractenstica11y 
u~~profitable or difficult years b::t onl:; !a! a hrilework c3f profitab?~ or successfill years. 'I'Eie peritisi:irig enti@ 
. . 
in ,Sc~r~~g(;'is.i: had ken it] bilsirless fbr over 1 1 years and routinely earxed a gross annual income of ahoilt 
6100,000. 
 During the year 111 wl-tich the pedeii:rr; was fiieci in that case, the petitioner changed busi!~ess 
Id 
ii:.ciiti011~ and paid rent on both the old snii new locations f~r five months. There were large mo~i;lg costs and 
also a period of'tirz~e ~vi~eri the petitiaxcr was unable to do regular bi~siaess. The Regional C:ornmissioner 
dL. -k?.nlittd x .'. ,..+ 2 that the ptritioner's prospects for a resumpiion of si,iccessful business operzttio-ns were we:! 
established. The petitionex was a CasIrii~n designer xvhose work had been featarcd in Ttlric' 3116 Look 
-. 
magazines. Her clients inciudcd Miss T.!a~iverse, rni~~~,ie actresses, and society matrons. 
 I he petitroner's 
ciients had been ~nciuded in the lists of the best-ciressed Calii'or.nia v4omc.n. 'The petitioner lectured on fashion 
desib~ at design and Fashion shows d~~ugho:it ihe Firlited States nrld at collsges and iirriver.sittrs in Caiihrnia. 
'1'I-r~ RegionaS Corrin-rissir~ner's dett=imi~.iaticm in Sonegawn was based in part 01.1 the petirioncr"~ sound 
business reputairon and ontsti~~dirig reputation as a couturiere. 
Unrrsi~al and unique circumsiances have niit been show? ti) exist in this case to pa;r;lllel rllose in 'SO~:~,~J~YO, ro 
ss~ablish that the period examined wis ar! uncharictei-istically unprofitable period fix dre petitioner. Counsel 
asserts that the penrioner can reasonably expect its fiittire prclfits to increase, with razovations conl.plt.ied in 
2002. Other than co~msel assertions, no evidernce was st:bmitted to support these slatenlents. 
 Witbotd 
documentary evidence to support. the ciaint, the assertions of connse! will not saris@ Ihe petitioner's burden crf 
,. . 
pr~30f. I he un~~~ppo~eed assertions of cotinsel do llOi constitr[t;: rsidericc. iWnfitlr qf Q~LJL~~P~:(I, 19 lr%N {kc. 
5.33, 534 (HA i 968); .L\f~ttt?~ qj-l,tiut.rano, 19 IAN Drc. 1 (RIA 1983 ): 840itcr c.$' R~mirez-.S~znch~~z. 17 I&% 
Dec. 503. ZC!6 jBIA 1980). By the cvidertce prcselz:ed, the petitioner has 1302 proven its ability to pay the 
proff'rilct wage. 
'Fhc evxicnze 5ubrnlitt.d doc5 not rsiabl~sh that rile pct~t;onclr irad the conlmurnp ab121fy to pay the profkrecl 
wage begln~xng on the prronry date. 
C'ouilsei's i'oatrnticsns cannot be ctrnciudeii to out~~eigh the evrdci~ee preserited in the two co~(3~~te iax 
retilrns as suhrnitted by petitioner that shoxvs that :he petitioner has not demonstrated its ability to pixy the 
proffered wage from the day the Form ETA 750 was accepted fc?r processing by any office wilI1jn the 
enxployymcnt sysrcm of the Departr~ent of 1,;rhor. 
T'lie burbei~ oi" 1~roc.1-f In ~hese proceedings rests sc-riel:; wid1 the petitioner.. Scctinn 291 of the Act, 8 1.j.S.C. 
$ 1341. Tile petitioner has riot met that burden. 
CBRDIER: 'i'he appeal is dismissed.