dismissed EB-3 Case: Food Service

U.S. Dcpariment of HornoBantd Sacus-i:~ 
20 M2j::s. r21c.. N.V;., Rm. A.?04? 
M'ash:n~rcjr~. I><. 23520 
-r]l;~: IS the decision oftlr:: Adalinjstrativr Appeals Oi'$icc. in your case. AII dociinieuts have heen ret~rraed 
.ic) die office that sriginaliy riecided your. cast.. Arry further illqrriry must bc made to that ot35ce. 
DILSC'USSILQN: 
Tile employrni.111-b8.d irni-nigant si~a petilioi: svas denied by the Director, Vamont 
Service Ceilter. The i'id~zlirlisrr3tivr Appeals Oftjce (AACdj gisiaissed a subseyirent appeal. The nrafter is 
na:v befi:t;re the AAi) on a n~oti~~-i to reopen. ':he rnoti~n .wij! be grarzted, the previous decis-iotj of the ibi0 
will bc a!-'[lrmed ai:d the petition 'ivill be denied. 
,- 7 
I he petitioner is 3 pizza maker. It seeks to employ are heneiki'ar-y pemai:cntiy in fhe Uj~jted Slates as a 
kitchen sripervisur. As reqbiiiet! by stacute. a Fcrn-n ETA 750; t'ipplication 1'0~ Alien Enlyloyjnenr 
C'excif-ical.i~s~~, iipproved by the Departrnwt of' Labor, accorr12anies the petitiit3-r. l'l7e director detegrlil-ied 
'rha:, the petitioner had not es~aisiished that it had ihe con:in:j;ng abii; cy to pay :he beneficial;ry :he proffered 
. . 
M'C~~C i?egit~.ning crl~ the pricsl-jty date of the visa petition. The AAO s~~nn~d-ily d-tsr?.i;ssed tile appea[ on 
.la~xuary 1 8, 2005. 
Seciiuii 203(13)(:'?)(A)jiii) of thr Imnrigratioi: arrd Natji?rraiily iict (the Act), 8 I1.S.C:. 5 1 I53{b){3)(,4){iii), 
provides for the gr:r;int!ng of pretr~el-rce classification tp q~rrtlified irnr~?:.:iga.nis who are capable, at the time 
crf petitionin:,: foi. ciassiiieatjon u31dc t- tiis par.ah~;ipji, of perf<jm:ing sfiskilled labor, not f' a temporary 0~ 
seasonal nalwe, for w!::ch qualified ~t<jrk~rs are not %-vailable in B?e liniied .States. 
* 7 
i he reg~ilatiorr nt 8 C.F.R. $ 303.5(g)(2) swes, in pertil~cnt pan: 
Ahili:~' o;f'prn,spt.c.ti!w c~i.~~v/oyc::. ro p!~ .tv(?ge. 
 Any petiiion iiled by or fi,>r 3.n 
c~npio::~nerit-based i;nmigrant ~%~lzjcil requires an offey c?i cmploy~-nttn-t nalsl: be 
accor1rpi3";xed by evidence that the prcsspectisre Xhjted States en~ployer has the ahili'ry tcr 
pay thz proffered wage. 'T'he perjtioner must denlonstrate rixs abiiity at the tiine the 
priority date 1s esta',jislred arid collt-ij-ruing until the beneficiary obtains Iawf'ui 
pc-mza~sent residence. Evidence of this abiliiy shaI1 br in the f~ji,nr: of copies of a-nnual 
repnl-is. federal. Pas reams, or audited .fina~zcini statements. 
Eligii~ility in this 3natier hinges or) ihc. petjtjaner's cclrrtinui~lg ahiliry to pay tile wage of&& begillring ol: 
the prio:-ity date, the day tbe rt?quest for labor cer-fificatinii was accepted hi- jxncessi~zg by any office 
witl-un the en?ployment systeni of the Deparlrr~ent of Labor. Scrc 8 C.F.R. $ 201.Sjd). Here, the revest 
hr jabor certific;rtinn was accepted nn Aprri 16, 3001. -Fhe prot'lkred sa1a1-y as stated on :tie labor 
cei-tificaiion is 59.5'6 per hoar or $i09,884.80 per year. 
On nzotion; colx~sel alleges to iiave subrnitted a I-eviewed financial statemen:. Ho~;ever, the 
dc~cumei~tationn provided states that Zhc fina~rciai statement, the balance sheet, af:d tlre income strttement 
[or the period ended Oclobz-r 1, 200: twt-e con-!piled, not rev-ievied', 'Re docurnentaliarr was prepwed by 
13atil A. Fe-!3raio. JY., Certified .P~Lb!ic ,!\~i.o~~n%~~lf (CPij.). and srates that "A?[ inforn~at~utl in the financial 
.- - . . . . . -. . . . . -. . . . . -. . . . . - . . . 
$ 
It is lloted ?ha: tlze ill~ancial stattlztnenl. the'balance sheer, and the ir~come staternest fir f~e period elldctf 
October 1, 390 1 are refcned to as L? eonlpilatiorl report in c~o plzces, albeit tht the second para~apl? of 
.. 
.It cover Ictter ii:d~cates it is a review. 
ytatemenls is the rear<>;. L.:~ilfdr~~I: v - c.c.~ v of xnanagemezt. . . kIai:ager?~.ent has elected to o~lli substs,ntiaily ail of 
the disclosures seqrrired by eneraliy acceptt:d aceoursted $?l.incipjt'~. 11 the onlitfed ijiscloslrres wue 
included 13 the Financia; St;itenients. they might infli~rn~ce the user's cor:chi~in;-rs about the c.on~pa~-zy 's 
fimar~cial position." 
'fie l'inancd statenlent states tile 'J'oial I,abor expense a.s F166,4)61 ,SS. T-t~is amormi 
clea3-ly proses the Petitic:iner's ability to pay O-ie proffered salary of S I 9,884.80 per year 
to the beneficiary. 
In ikttwfiq-cning tht' pc.ii~iizi:t.r's at-.iIiry to pay the prolfered wage. C~tizenship and Imm;gration Services 
$. ,.<.'IS) - will first exanlil-rc wlseB7er- tile pztifivncr ejnployed the he11eticia1-y at ihs tirne the px?;~rl.iiy da:e ivas 
established. tC the petiric,~xer establisl-tes hy documentary evidetrce fh;it IT enlplsyed the bynefioiary at a 
saiaq ecluz1 to or greater tI:arz the proffered wr'i,ge: :his evidence will be co~~s~dered prima hcie proof of 
the petitioner's abil:~); to pay the profkred wage. In the present matier, t:le petitirs~ler did not establish 
lllat it en-tployed the ijesei'iciar-y 2: ;i salary equal tu csr greater tha~trl ti:e proffered wage 
 2001. 
 fact, 
the beneficiary's 2iiQ1 Form W-2: !?:3ge asd '!'ax S~aterrse~~t. irrcticates that the beneficiary eargleif orliy 
514,479.42 ivl-rile vv'orkirlg for tl~? petitioner in 200:. 
AS 211 altenrate nreans of derciwjr~ing the petit-iotler's ab~iity to pay. the rl.cZO tviil ~GXI exalni~rc tke 
petitioneris net iircorr~e figure as :cflei:ieil 011 the f'ecicral mconse tax retxirn, without consideration of' 
depreciation or odres expenses. Reliance on federal incorne :as returns as ;! basis for detcm?iniog a 
petitioner's ability to pay the proffired \cage is weil estaltlisl-red by judicial precedent. E1~to.v i(t:vfuwa,rf 
C,'ojp. v. S~ijci, 532 F. Sirpi-,. i'349, I954 6S.U.N.Y. 1'386) (citing I;-;~!,~yrici~?ii 5f/c?o&:r.~;ff ffa14;c;lii. Lit;! 1.. 
.Fellfinan, 736 F.2d I305 (9th Cir. 1984)); .re2 alsc Cyiii-6-'tzrg dddizan~ Y. TI?orlzbzirghl 719 F', 5~1~13. 53.2 
(N.D. 'S'ertas 1989); iC,iT..P. Food Co., I'i~t:. I? ,!!~;.35.~, 62-1 F. S;lpp. 11280 (S.D.N.Y. 1985 1; Cihstia ,,i. p~tlnl~:l.. 
539 F. Supp. 64:: (N.D. Ili. 1985), rg?c', 703 F.2d 571 ('7th Cir. i983j. 111 K.C.P. Food Co.? hc, 1). SC~VLL~ 
the coinc heitf CIS had properiy relied un the petitioner's ~ct incaa~e Tigxe, as stated on $lie petitioner's 
. . 
corpor21te imcon-re lax returns, rather than oiIt :he pet~hotrer's gross ineonre. 623 F. Supp. at 1034. 'I'he 
cc?ufi specificzily rejected the argument that C%S sI~ouid ]lave considered income before expenses were 
paid rather Illan net incotoe. Finally, ?here is 1x1 precedent Lhztt would aliow the petitioner to "add back to 
net cash ill11.e ddepreciation ecpen:;e cl~arged 53: the year." CTll!'-./~e~ig Chon v. TI~oY~~~uI~IL, ? 1 5) I;. S~ipp. at 
537: $re uisci Bii~ltis f\'es~aur.atlf C'ijr~. 5'. ;?i~v!z, 632 F. SUJ~>. at liIS4. 
Neve~ti-teless, :he petitioner's net irrcctme js not the only stat-istic that c21: be used to demonskate a 
petitioner's gbiIi?y to pay a prof-i'ered wage. If the rset income ihr petitioner trden2oristrates it had available 
d~uir~g ihai period, if aey, added ti:) the wages paid to rlze beaeiciary during the per-ic?d, if any, do not 
cqual the arnirui~t of the prcCfereii wage or nxore, CBS will review the petitioner's assets. 'Yhe i>etiticsner's 
topal asc;cts irlclude dtqx-t'cjable assets that the petitioner uses in ;is bus~ness. Those depreciable assets 
will not be coi-tverted to cad1 durii~g the ordir~ary course of 13usiness and will noi, therelore, beconre firtxds 
avaiinbie to pay tiit' proffer-ec: wage. Further; thz petitioner's t&ii assels must be balanced by the 
pe-titioorr's Iiz,biiitii.s. Otlrerwise, tlrzy canisot properly be considered irr the deiernlilsalion of the 
petit-iunsr's ability to yay the proffered wage. 
 Ratlier-, CXS ~vilt consider- i?ef c~i~~er~i G:<,yPLs ss an 
altzr-native methoif of ifen~onsir~iing the atiiiiiy to pay the proxered wage. 
Net c~ir-i.ent assets r-:re the dtffercnce hetsvcer? file petitioner's c:nrsn.l assets and current Iiabilitic?~.' A 
cr?rporat.ic,m~'s year-erzd ciirrerjt assets are shown on Schitdirle L. lines I ttlcsugh 6. Its year-end c:irreEt 
liabilities are shown on lines 16 through 18. 1i-.2t cr.l~y)cxalion's errd-of-year net ctinent assets are equal to 
{:I;- great:er tisan the 1,roif'ered wage. ti-.? petitioner is expected to he able to pa); lfie proffered wage out. of 
those net cuxent assets. '%'he petitio~er did 3-rut provide a cops of its kderal ineornc tax return hr 2061. 
3. , 
I hesefore, it is irt-1possi1,ie fox the AAO to deternirrte its net crrrrent asscts ii; 21)Oi. 1x1 addition, the 
pciit~oner-'s ~ioancjal siaie~nezts were for the per!i?d ended October i, 2Ciii1, not a 5-111 year. Co:lnseZ !:as 
nor- suggested t1-ta: the petiijoner's 2001 ELX renin-t was u31a~,aijablr, and sime the petjtion was not filed 
with the director until Febrtla3-y 22, 20011, :here agyears to br. 130 reasorr that the iiix xetiri-11 was not 
auiiahle. 
C':ounsei conte~~ds that the compiled firrai-cia1 siatements subn-tirted sliijw locai labor expaise of $166.661.80; 
and, ~herefbre,  he petitir.>ner has est&t>Iisirc.d its abilit); to pay ~lii proffered wage of's1 9,884.80. Cuts]-tsel is 
~nistakeri, '171e rt..gu',ation at 8 C.F.R. 5 704.5(~')(2) -. n-rakes clear that where a petitioner relies nn tinanciaI 
slate.-- 
. 
 :<,,,nts to dernorlstrate its zbiiity to pay the yroiiYered <.:age, those tinancia! statements rnust be 
audited. An audit is co~xducted in accor&:nce with generzlly nccepfed axiditir~g sttlxdards ti? obtain a 
reasonablt. assuraiice ihzt the financial staterrrenis sf the btisiness are iiee of material nl-rsstate-meals. The 
uimaudited tina~~cial st;~tements tkdt courlsel submittei! wilh the petitiorl are not persuasive evidence. '%'he 
accc~uniant's report that accoinpanied illrxe hancial stater~ents malies clear hat they were produced 
pursuzint to a cc~~nj~ilaticir~ rather than an audit. As the acco~inrant's report also makes clezir, I;!r?ancrzi,l 
statentents prodi~ccci pursuant to ar~ytkirig less than a31 audit are the repiesentarisins of m;u-mgerrreat 
con~piled into sla;id;ird iom~. '%'he ansilpported rcl3reseniatio1is o-i' marn~erneilt 2re not reliable evide~~ct: 
rind are !nsufftiicient t<j dc~ni>i:strate il1e al?jl.ity to pay the prwi'fhed wageJ. fFurthe~snor-e, iriliess the 
bcnefjcizry was ach~dly paid t11e proffereil i>iiage, rnereiy paying wages, 1x0 o?aCLer the total, docs not 
assure that the pecitirrner can pay the difference betiveen the wages paid to the hcneficiary of 514,4.79.42 
anif the pre3ffer-ed wage of $1 '3,884.80. 
To p~t?c.ii: its abiiity tto pay the prwffered wage of' $19.884.80 in 200'1: r;lre petitioj-ter- failed to submit the 
necessdry evidrnee as required by the I-egirlattori at C.F.R. ij 20-2.5(&(2) which states that the evider:ce 
lntrst be itr the form of espies ctrf annual rep~ris, federitl tax retllms, or acdited fi~sancial statemnexits. 'The 
petitionei. has not established its corrtir:rring ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date of 
-. . . . 
 . . . 
 . . . -. . . . -. . . . 
' According to Ba.rrrzn's Dictioriaq> cfLlcrotrnring ~crnls 117 ('3'" ed. 2000), "cirrient assets" consist nf 
;;ems ha\;ing (in nlost cases) a lii: of one year or less, such as cash, ~narkctable securities, irrvento~y and 
prepaid expense:;. -'C'unrent liahi~ities" ar-c cjbligal.ic:~:is payable (in nlost csses) within one year, snch 
accounts paydbie, short-term notes payable, and accrued expei:ses [such as taxes and salaries). liJ. at t 18. 
i 
i~ is nokd drat even t!iough. the director grarzted tl~e petitioner the option of submitting reviewed 
fi.r:a~~cjai statermnts, th~ regu1ations staie tl~at only audited starenleilts arc acceptable forr~ls of eviri~~ce to 
establish .the ability tcj pay the pr-of'fur-ed wage. Wc~wever, sixe the petitionr-r- did nai submit i-es.iev:ed 
ilnnncia: staten~ents, in winch zase the petition may have been remanded, the appeal will be ciisnlisscd 
becnilsit t:he rc.crrsd of proceeding lacks any af'rlie requiscd docu~nentatiorr. See the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 2t'!4.5( gb(2). 
April :6, 2001. In aliditlon, CIS records 517~3~ tj78i the petifiorrrr has fijed n~~ili-iple petitiisrls with chr: 
same priixity date reilscied on Foi-1:: E'TA 750. 'I".,.- ,;~ref?xc, the  petition^^ must sho~,~ that II bad suf'fic~errt 
k-tcirme to pay all IIX wages at the priority date. 
'The !rut-den of' pl-cmf !I? tl~ese proceeii jngs ri.:%s solely ivitix fie peti';io~~er. Section 39 J of the Act, 8 1.;. S .C;. 
$ I .ib 1. 'The petitioner has ncrrt. sustained that hi~r.3en. Accordingly. the prev3ou.s decision ofthe i?A8 will be 
nliinned, and the petiric?n w~ll ire denieit. 
ORDER: 
 'File director's decision of June 24.. 2004 is aiXi'il~ned. '%'he petition is denied