dismissed EB-3 Case: Flooring Installation

U.5. Wt:g>arimenr dl[-l<imelanef Security 
20 MXS. N.W. iim. A30ij11 
U'ash$;.ton, TX: 2052') 
S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
i~ 
seciin!~ 203 jb j(3 j of the Imrriigraticrrn and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C~ 4 I 1.53(b)(-l j 
'This is the decision ofthe Rdrninistrativc Appeals OBice in your case. All documents have bertl 
returned to the oiii'i'jct: that originally decided your csse. Arly fi~rtl-rer :rnquiry mus; be nlade to that 
ui'fice. 
DISCIL!SSI1ON: 'The preference visa petition was dct~ied by the Direc~ar~ 'T'ex.as Seivice Center, and IS now 
befbre the Pldminisiraiive Appeals Office on appeal. I'ize appeal wili be dismissed. 
T'he petitioner 1s a ccar:sor.atiirrlz in the business of the inst;ilia.liij~z and nlaiz~terlance of flooring. Ii seeks to 
< 
employ the beneficiaryi permanently in llle united Stares as a f'loor installer. 21s required by slatute, the 
petition is accompan~cb by a Foi-tn EVA 750, Application 101- Alien En-tp!oyment Certification, ~pproved by 
the I.!. S. Depzirtrne-nt of Labor. The dir~ctor dcterrnined Bzat the petitioner had not established that it had the 
cor~tinuing abiliry to pay the brneliciary the proffered wage beginning on the priority date uftfle visa petliion. 
Ths director derried the petrtlim accordi~~gIy. 
Sectiori 203(b)(3)jA)(i)l o-f the immigration and Nationaiiiy Act (the m%ct), 8 U.S.C. 4 1153(is)(3)j)(i), 
provides for tlze granting of preference classification to qualilied irnri3igyants u41o ate capable, zit the time of 
petiiionirrg fbr classification lrllder this par-zigraph, of perforrs~ing skilied labor Crequirrng at leas; two yean.; 
training or experience), cot irf a temporary nature, fbr which yusiliiied workers are not available in i'ne Uniteit 
Stares. 
.. . 
I be regulatics at 8 C.F.R. 5 203.S(g)(3) gates in pet-tinent parc: 
rlhlhtj, /?f' pn>,tpt;cdvt. crq~iyii~r 10 pi;!) ivage. 
 Any petiiioil fiiecl by or for ail 
rm~~ii~yn~errt~-hased imnligant which requires an offer oC er::phyinent must be 
accompanied by evidence that the prospeclive Lkited States err~ployer has the ability 
ti? pay the prcrri'cred wage. The pctitroner must denzonstrate this ability at the tirne 
the priority date is established and contirruing until the beneficiary ohtarns lawfill 
permanent r.csidence. Evidence of this ability shall be i;i tile fomr of copies of annual 
reports, federal tax r-er~irns. or aildited fina~ciai statements. 
'The regu1ai'ioj-r at 8 C:FR $ 204,5(1:~(P)jii) sares, ill per:,Pdaent part: 
(A) Gejriad. Any requiren-ents of training or experience for skilled uiorkers, 
professionals, or other tvorkers mrrst be siippr~ried by letters fiom ttxiners or ei-nployers 
giving the nanle; address, and title of tht' trainer or e~nplnyer, 2nd a description of the 
tminirrg recr.:.seil or llle expefienze oiihc aiiet:. 
R) 1 s. 
 If the yetjtjon is ibr a. skilled workt'r, the petition rriirst be 
accc>n~parlied l:ty ev;dence [hit the slim meets the educ.;ltional, training or exjterience, 
and any other reqmrenxnts of the individual labor certificatioc, nleets the requirements 
k1- Scl~rd~~le A designatio~, or rneets the reyu;ren~ents for the Labor Market Inforn~atii?rl 
I'iist Progxdr:~ crrccupat-ion desig;nat-ion. The rniniinuln require~t~ents for this 
classification are sil least hvo yexs of tiainilig or e;ip;ier?ce. 
'H'he pc?trtrc?ner must demonstr.r;ite the citi~finaii~g ability :o pay the proffereci wage beginning on he prioriv 
date, wh~c'n is tile date the Fc!rm ETA 750 Application for Alien E~:lployn-ren? Certification, was accepted for 
r, 
processing f-~y any (iffice ~viihin fze en~yslqment systern of the U.S. Department oi'Labni-. d hi. petiticjiner nzilst 
also dernoristmte :.hat, on the priority dale, the brncficiary had ihe qil;i.;ificatlc~ns stated on its Fornl ETA 750 
. . 
 . . :... . . . .,.,... . 
. . 
Anoihrr alien cumber for the beneficiary toilnd m i'ir recrrrd of proceeding im 
.4;~plieaiiur1 Ibr Alien Employment CertiGcation as ca-t!fied by g:e U.S. Depzrrtrr~ent of [..ahor and submitted with 
tlic instat petition. Ariczlfc:. of t$'inp's Te7i If<~usc., 16 I&N Dec. 158 (Act. Reg. Conun. 197'!'). 
Hers.. the Fom~ ETA 750 vias zicccpted or2 April 26, 200 1 ."lx proffered wage as stated 017 the I;orrll E'1.A 
750 Is 525.00 per Ilorrr ($52,600.00 per- year). The Frsl-;n E:TA 750 states that ihe position requires t~~o years 
experience. 
On appesl, cou~zse': subrrlits a legal brief an3 additional e-vidence 
il'itl~ the petition cr~*111sel ssbmitted the csriginal Form ET'A 7F;i!, Applicatioii for Aiierl En~ployment 
Ceflification, approved by the 1J.S. I.>epartment of La1;rcrr together with copies of docutrrcntary evidence, and, 
because the director. detern2ined the evidence submitted wiih the petition ivas inx1i3icient to demonstratc tlzc 
peiirioner's cirnfir1uii:g ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on the priority date, consisterrt with 8 
C'S.R. $204.S(gX2), the dir-ectvr req~lested on Aug~:lis~ 30, 2004, pertinent et71denc.e or the petrtiorser's ability to 
pay the proEfesed wage beginning on the pi-;o~i:y date. 
Ccjunsel sublnitted copies of the following documents: a srippv1-9 letter dated March 30. 2003; approxirriarely 
'I 2 busiriess checking skiteme~zts fix the year 2002 3rd jannaiy 1. 2003 to .Tantiary -5 1, 2003; the petitioner's 
I.T.S. Internal Revenus: Se~ice (1.RS) Form i 120s rax retm:s for years 2ijOi. 200'2 and 2003; 311 unaudited 
fir2aricial shiemt~t dakil Janr~ry 331. 2003; copies of documentation cc>ncerning the benelici;iry's 
qunlifjcarior:~ as weil as other doctm2eniaticrrn. 
'11-te director alsc:, rerfilested that the petitioner provide co~pies of the iseneficiary's W-2 Wage and 'Tax Statements 
i:,:~r- 200 1 , 2002 and 2003 .' 
, ?. 
I ile director denicd ihe petition on January $3,2005. finding that the evidence sub~~zitteii did not establish that 
111e petitioner h;:lid the conrinuirrg abiiity io pay the profkred wage beginning on the pr;orify date. 
On appeal; courlsel asscrls thai thc d!rectcjr did not take into consideration the total compensation pad ~o 
petitioner's workers in years 2001, 200% and 2003. Also, co~~rlsel st~tes tire beneficiary was paid wages 
equatirig to n portion of the proffered :.;age in years 'POi:iI, 2002 md 2003. 
Counsel has silhmitted the foliowing docuinerrts to acenmpafiy the appeal stalernct~t: po~-tic)rls of the 
petitivnei.'s tax retcinls for ?OOl, 2002 and 2003, a114 ICYN-MISC: statements issued to the berreiiciary for 
those sarric years. 
111 determining the petitioner's alsjlity to pay the prt~rfered ~vagc during a given period, U.S. Citizenship and 
.. 
Irnrnrgratior?. Services (CIS;! all! trrsf exlrrnirlc whether dre petitloner employed and paid the beneficiary 
during that period. If the petitioner establislres by document3ry e~iidence that it ern:;rloyed the bei~efjciary at a 
saiary equal to or greater than the pr-ofk-ed wage, the csridence v;.ill be considered prinra &cie procaf of the 
pelitione~'~ ahill:); lo pay the proff-kred wage. Evidence was submitted to sl~o~t. that the petitioner enxployed 
' Ii has bee11 appsoxirr~ately five years si!:ce the AIier! Et~ployniitnt Application has berr.1: accepted an3 the 
. .. 
proffcreil ivae establisbsd. Accordij-tg to tile e?rlplo;ve;- certitication that is part of the aj~plicatiort. ETiZ Form 
- - 
:>ij Part A, Section 23 b.. states "'T!:e wage offered eq~iais tir exceeds tlre prevailing wage and I [the 
. . 
e11-~ployerj guai.antee that, if a labor certificatrcjn is granted, the Ix;age paid to the alien when the alien begins 
work vjliI equal rir exceed the preiiailing wcrge whiclz is applicable at the tirne the aiieii begins work." 
1,. 
I he Fonn ETA 750 1-3 stated that :he petitioner smpfoyed the keneficiary since hlay 1999. 
Page 4 
the Zseneficix-j since hfzy 1999, In tax years 2001, 2003 and 200-3, die petiiioner paid the bei~eficiary 
$32.939.00. Si 6,736.00 and $5.492.50 respecriveiy. 
Alternatieel!;, in deta-mining the petitioner's ability to pay the proi'kred wage, CIS ivill examine d-re net 
jncome figrue rel-lccre~i on the petliia!:crds federai income tax retunx, w~ithouf consideration of depreeiatinrt or 
oil-ter expenses. Reliance 011 federal ineon~e :ax retunrs as a basis hr determining a petitioner's ability to pay 
the proffered wage is well esta5iished by judicial precedent. Efa:os K~.~fiiii?.~tif CO~J, 1'. ,Y(rliii, 632 F.S:lpp. 
1049, iO54 (S.n.n'.n'. 1986) (citing Tiingalapu i/ti-,i:dcr!.!/r ff~nvaii, Lrd ,I. .F;d~ISaliln. 736 F.2d 1305 , (9th Cir. 
1984) ); scji: n/so Ci7i-F~.eg Chang ii. Thnmbu:glt, 71 Si F.Supp. 532 (N,D. 'T'exas 1989): K.C7.P. F'ood Cn., Inc. 
1: 5'~5;.lr)o, 623 F.Supp. 1080 (S.B.X.Y. 1985); 1The(;Cr ii. Pub~er, 539 F.Snpp. 647 (N.Pt. 111. 1982), afrd, 703 
F.2d 571 (7th Clw. '1 985). Irk K. C.PP &hod Co.. ir~,. v. .Sm>a, the court heid that the Service had properly relied 
on the petitioner':; net incorr~e figul-e, as seirted oil :he petitioner's corporate income tax returns, rather than the 
petiticmer's gross income. Sr~prtz at 1084. 'The court specifically rejecied the argiin~enl that CIS slrotrld have 
cc)~-tsidcred income hefore expenses were paid rather than net income. Fi:iaily, no precedent exists tlsat would 
ailow cfie ptlriiio!:er tc? "add hack ti> net cash the depr.eciztior: expense charged for the year." Chi-.Feng C'hilfig 
11. Uinrurhuqh, Supra nt 537. See QISO EL!~fo:i' Restaurmi(. Cwp. ii. JY~;~(a, S~rpr.~ at 1054. 
'T'he tax returns demonstrated the hllowing financial infornsatior! col-rcerning Else petitjoner's ability to pay the 
proffered wage of 152.000.00 per yea %on: the priority date of April 26, 200 I: 
'IB 
 Jn 2200 1, the Form I 12OS staled taxable income': of $1 O,ii8{;.0O 
er 
 in 2002, the Form 1 i20S stated taxable inccsme of $12,673.00. 
er 
 II-I 200 3, the f'om i 120s stated taxable inciitme of S23,6 18.00. 
C'ounsel stated the ber!eficiar;i was paid wages equating to a portion of the prcrffered .~/;ige irr years 2001, 2002 
anil 3003; but aucording to the ab(3a.e. the petitioner cutlld nor pay the proffered wage of '$52,000.00 per year 
tlzrcrrtgh an exarninatrtx of its taxable inccme and coinpensation paid to the beneficiary in ycass 2001, 2002 
and 2003. 
If ihe net income fhc petitioner den~onstmtes ii !lad available during that pe-ricrd, if any, added to the wages 
paid to the btlrret;cial-\; during the period, ;f any, do not equal the anlcl~~nt of the prof$;red wage or ~~lorc, CIS 
wi.ill review the petilioi-ter's assets. 
as 
 Tr! PiiO 1, the Forn-t i 120s stated taxable incuine Y; 10,08C~.00. 
?'Ire petitioner paid the 
.- . 
l~eneficia~y $32,938.80 in 2001. 'The prc?Ifered wage is 'l'.52,000.00 per \;car. I he sum of 
fhc taxahle income and the wages paid js $43,024.00 that 1s Jess than the prrrflereci wage. 
(B 
 .in 2202, Ihc Forn-t 1120S stated taxable inconie loss of 312,673.00. '%'he petitioner paid 
tile lieneticiary $16,736.00 in 2002, 'The proffered wage is $52,000.09 per year. 'Y'he sum 
of the taxable incornc ant! the wages paid is less than the proffered wage. 
* 
 in 2003, the Form :, 130S stated taxable incorrle $39,ii18,C!Cb. 
The petitioner paid the 
beiieficiary $5.492.50 in 2003. The pl-offked wage is $52,i?Oi~.I?D per :year. -T1he SUIX of 
the tarairie income and the wages paid is more than the proffer-ed wage. 
The gctitioner's net current assets can be considered in the deten-tlination ei' the alrrility to pay the prcrrffe~ed. 
w0o.e -C especi3liy when ttxre is a fiiilure of the petitroner to den-ronskite thot it has taxable incurrre to pay the 
..... 
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 
4 
 TKS Form i 120s. Line 21. 
prol't;;:red wage. II~ the su5.ject case.. as set fct~"ih above, the petitiorler did not have taxable incorrlc sufficient to 
pay the prc>flet.ed wage at any tijar between dse years 24101 thrwigh 2003 fbr which the petitioner's tali remrns 
are o fkrert for e-vider-ice. 
CIS will consider nc! clzr.rinl ~w.:$eb as an ;iltei.i?ative rnethvii of demc>nstratjng the ability to topay the proffered 
ware. Net current assets are the ilifference between the petitioi-~er's current assets and cur-rent liabilities,' ,4 
coqoraiion's year-errd clin-ent asseis are shov*.rr on Schedule t, iines 1 t1rro:lgh li. That scbed;ile is included 
with, as h this instance, the petitioner's fihng of Form 11 20s f deral tax return. ?She petitioner's year-end 
cur-re]-t: liabilities are showr: on lines i4 tl~rougls 18. 4f a corporation's end-ol-year net current assets are eiluat 
lo or greater 1hzxr-n the pro.ffered wage, the petitioner is expecied to be able to pay the proffered wage. 
Exanlining the Funn I1 20s G.S. Income ?'as Wetur?ls submitied by tile peiitioner, Schedule L fi~und in each 
o,T Itlose retu3-n~ i-ndicafcs the foZlowii~g: 
e 
 in. 2001, petitioner's Forn~ 1120S r.e%m stated czrrent assets of $758.00 and $13,616.00 in 
cun-ent Ziabliities. Therefor-e, the petrtloner had ~~$12;858.00>\n net cuxetlt assets. Since 
the pri>Zered wage is $52,000.00 per yeah this sLrnl is less tharr the proilkred wage. 
r 
 131 2002, peti:irtner's Form i 120S return stated current assets of $830.00 =cS $13,849.00 in 
cun-eni liabljltjes. Tf~eref<?re, he petitioner had *:$I i,O19.00> in net current assets. Since the 
proffered wage is $S-P,OOO.I?O per year-, this sum is less than :he proffered wage. 
* 
 12 '7003, petitioner's Form 1,12(.jS !-ctiim staad tun-eni assets of S 1,35?.00 and 54 1,616.00 in 
current liabilities. Tilerefme, the petitloner had \:$40,259.00:. in net ctu-rent assets. Since the 
woffered wage is S52,000.00 per year, this slrn: is less ~han tl:e proffered wage. 
Thercf'ore, for the period 2(50I risrougtr 2003 from the date the Forrn FI'A 750 was accepted lor processing by 
the 1J. 5. Departnleni of f.abor: the petitioner had not estahlisiied tisaz it had the al3iiity to prry the beneficiary 
' 
ILL prof'iered wage at the tirrle of filing illrougl~ an examination of its net crrnent asseis. 
Counsel asserts in his lsrief accompanying the .,appeal that there is another way to determine the petitioner's 
ability to pay the proffered wage frorn the?, priority date accordilsg to the tota! compensation paid to 
petitic?ner's viorkers in years _700I, 201?2 and 290::. According to regillation,' copies of annual reports, feder;il 
tax returns, or audited t<::r:anciaI statements zre ihe means by which petitioner's ability to pa:y is determined. 
Wages already paid to others are not a~iailabic to prove ihe abi;ity to yay the wage proffered to the beneficiary at 
the prioniy dat.e of the petition and continuing to the present. In K. C.P. Fi~od [.'(I., 1i;lr.. v. ,Si~l)a, 623 F.Supp. 
1080 (S.D.N.Y. ICfKS), the court held that the Service had properiy relied o~i the petitioner's net incoiae figme, 
as stated on dre iseiltioner's corporate income tiix returns. raiher than the .petitiol~er's gross. income. ,Supm 21: 
1084. 'The court specificalIji rqected the argument ihaf CIS should have considered income bekre e.uper:ses 
wue isaid r;!rher ihan net income. The suggesiiorr that expenses should be treated as assets availabie to pay 
--. . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . 
 . . - . . . - 
According to Snrmr? :s. Dicficvsnr). .. o/'.4ccr.,?iniii-1g Ti?mrs 1 17 (3'" ed. 2000), ."c~:rri'nt ~!SSC~S" consist of stems 
llatii12,g (~n most cases) a life of cane year ol- less, such as cash, nsarketnble secnrit~es.., invctlto~y and prepaid 
expenses. "Current liabilit~es" are obligations payable (in most cases) within one year, such as accounts 
payahie, si:crt-term noiss payable, 2nd accnied expenses Qsucli as taxes ar:d salaries). ItI. ar 1 ; 8. 
5 
 '-She sy-tn'bols -<:a irz~nrhta.> indicate a negiitive ilun~ber, or ii: the context of a tax .rdtll;?; i?r other Sisiin~ial 
state::lcnt, a loss, that is below zero. 
' 8 C.F.R.. 5 204.5(gj(2). 
the proffered wage is not persuasive. Wages paid to others cani:ot be used to prove the ability the ability to 
pay d~e proffered wage. 
Xie e.u.iderrcr. sr~brniitzd does not estabiish :hat Biz petitioner had tile coritinuir:p a'i.silil-y 90 pay the p~offered 
tmge begirmirzg 013 the priority date. 
Cormselms ccmientinns cannot be concludeai to outweigh the e~iderice presented in the three corporate tcw 
returns as s~hmirted Ss petitioner that shows that the pecitio~~er has rat ci~monstrated its ability to pay the 
proffered mge hoin the day the Fan1 ETA 7% was accepted for processing by any ofice ~vi~llln the 
empli;iy ment sy stern of the Depzfirr~ri~t of Labor. 
'The burden of proof in t?::esr jmxxedi~zgs rests solely with ~lle petitioner. Sectic~in 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
$ 136 1. The pet] tioner has nor met ihit burden. 
ORBEPI: T'hr appeal is dismissed.