dismissed EB-3 Case: Nursing

U.5. Drg~srtrnemt oi'it-loineland Sccalrity 
,s .. 
,G ivtass. N.W. Rtn. AIOCO 
\I'.:i;i~ingr(:n. 1X: 20529 
US. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
office: CAI..~FORNIA SE,RVICF CENTER ~3atc: 
 2 4 > 7ni:y ..i 2 
PE'TI7IC.W: Immigrant petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker csr Professional pursuant to section 
303(h){:i) of the Irrirnigration and Nationality Act, X t.!.S.C. $ i ijP(b)j_?) 
This is tile decision iff rhe iidrninistwative Appeals Gfijce in your case. ,411 documents have been returned fu 
the crflice that originally decided your ease. Any f-.urtker inquiry nzusi be rnade to that office. 
Page 2 
DISCb"S80N: The preikrei-rce vrsa petition 1va.s cienied by the Dnrector, Caiifimia Service Center, and is 
rloLv b-i:- ,%~t!-e the Administrative Appeals Ol'i-ce on appeai. The appeal wiI! be dismissed. 
,. . 
I. he petitio~ler is a health care services. it seeks to ei~iploy ihe henei'iciary per-rnanently in d~e TJniad Slam as 
a registered nurse. 'The petitioner asserts <:at the beneGciary qr~aljfies for blanket labor cel-lificatron pursuant to 
20 C.F.R. 5 656.i01 Schedule ti, Group I. The director determined that the evidence suhmiited dcxs not 
dernolzs~~.te that the isotice IP~ filing the Appiicatic~i~ fix Alien Certification was posted acccrrrding tcz the 
regx~lation at 20 C.F.R. $ 656.2O(p)(i),' all$, the petitioner had not established that it had the cniitinuing 
ability to pay tile beneficiary the...proffered ivage hegi113-ting on the priorit:; date of the visa petition. 'I'hc 
director denied the jsetition accordii~giy. 
Accurdizg to t41e petitioner, it has been in opemtions since i997, and ii eniploys 42 persoimel 
On appeai. cortrasei subinits a brief and addizioml evidence. 
Secrio~i 20.ijb)(3) of the ImnUg.atrc~n and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.G. *$ 1153(b),)(3), prvvides for rlx 
grai:ti-ng of prderefice classdjcatii?~~ to yualiiied inxrnig-annls ~vFii:, are capable. at the time of petitioning for 
classification under this paragraph, of perforrnirrg skilled or unskilled labor, z?ot of a f-eingorary or seasotlal nature, 
i-ix- which y~ralified workers are not rvrailablt' in the li-nitod States, This section also provides for the graniir~g of 
L ti-nce classification lo yuaitfird irmigants who bcsid baccalaureate degrees and are mernbers of tile 
pr-c- .- 
professions. 
%E this case, the pef timer has filed an lnmmigdnt Pelitioz fix Alien Wrjrker (FOIT~ 1-140') for classification under 
seciicm 203(ls)(3)(A)(i) of the Aci as a skilled i.ci?rker (registered ~ursej. Aliens x~/llo will he employed as nurses 
are listed on Scheduie A. Schedule A is a list of c~cc~~pttioils foui:d zt 20 C'.F.R. f 656.10. 'Tl?c Direclur of the 
Unjttd Stdtes Empioynient Service has deternzined that an ins:liliiciei?.t nim-her of United Sttes workers axe able, 
\x/illing, qualifjed: and a3;ailabie lo fill the positioiis asailable irl t-lrose occupations, and that the eq>loyin~mt of 
aliens in such occupations will noi adversely affect tlx wages azid workiixg conditiorrs of United States workers 
sitnilaxiji enlplcjyed. 
me regulr:tion at. 20 C.F.R.. 3 55G.::O(a)(2! speci'ifies tl-mt prrrtfessii?fial nurses arc an-iong those qlalified %I- 
Schedule A desigiiation if they have passed dle Conrmissim on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools 
(GGFNS) E?;al-r,lnation irr hold a full an$; unres~ricted license to practice prufessioi~al rrtrrsing in the slate (sf 
intended e:r;p1oyr~ent..' 
TIre regulation at 26, C.F,R.. 9 656.22 (Applications for labor cer-tir'ication for Schedule 1% oi.cuption.r;.j lbj(2) 
states that [the Application for Alien Errlp'loynlent C':e-t:fic3tion fisrm shall jnciude:] Evidence that notice of 
Cjling the application I-i?r Ahlien Employnent Certi5c&on was prcwided to :he bargaining representative or the 
employer's ernyloyees as prescribed ~n $ 656.10( g)(3 ) of this pal?. 
' According to a starenlent of' posting included with the petrric?n as an exhibit, notice of filing the App'iication 
Ior hlieia Ceitificxiion was posted uz the uffice r.eceptior! apes and errlployees' Ioimge area a2 the petitioner's 
c:,fl-ices at Daiy Ctty, Cailibrnia. 
" Regarding the beneficiary's receipt of a CGFN certificate. cocnsel stated in 3 letier daicd C3ciobc~ 115. 20er4, 
that the beneficiary was tc, take the esaminatioi: for the certificate on Ortoher I(i.2004. 
-Fhe regulatiurt at 30 C.F.R. 9 656.20{g~!?j states hat: 
Any notice oi'the fijlng OT~TI Applicativni %I- Alien Empioy~oent 6:'er:jficaiiofi shall 
(I j Slate that appl~canir st.iouI<J rcpo?? to the employer, rro: to the locai E:npio>,mcni Service 
oftice: 
(ii) State that the rriotiile IS being provided as a result 01' the fjiing of an applicaiioi: for 
permanent alrerl labor cer-tif':ca:ion for the relevant Job opportunity; and 
(ill) State that any perrwtl may prnvjde documentary evtdcnce bearmg csn the appllcatxon lo 
rlic irsc;i: Employment Servlcr Officc and/or tfic regional Cerllfy~rlg tlftker of the 
T)cpa?tment of Labor 
'The regujaiioi: at 2C! C.F.R. fj 65Qi.22(~)(2) siatcs: 
An empli~yer seeking a Schedille h labor cei?ificarion as a professional nurse (5 G56.10{a)i2) 
of this part) shall iile, as pa< of its labor cefiification application, documentation that the 
alien !:as passed the Csmmlssion on G~+duates of Foreigrr W~rrsizg Scl~ools (CGFN) 
Examinatro~z; or thal ihe alien hirlds a fi~li and unrestricted (pennanci~i'j license to practice 
nursing in the Stale of intended enxplityment. 
In a memo dated L)eceinher 20, 2002, the Oftke of Adjudications of the CIS issued a menlo instn~cting Service 
Cenier to accepi 3 cei-titjed copy of it letrct. iiot1-r tile state of intended employment st'dtklg that the beneficiary has 
passed tine Natirmal Cotrncii I-ice~~sure Exarninatirjn for Registered Nurses (WC'LEX-BXN) and is eligible 20 
receive 3 license lo practice 1212rsii7g in tIrat state in lieu of either having passed the CGP'NS examninatic?n or 
c~rtei~tiji I:sw;ng a licerrse to -pract!ce nursi118 in that state. 
An erripioyer si:all apply fdr a labor certificaiiorl for a Schedule A occu;?ation i?S; filing ~3n Application for ,411en 
Etnpioyms-nt i.'eflrficaiic?~l [Forr:~ ETA 750 at Part A) In duplicate ul-ith the appropriate U.S. Citizmd3ip and 
Irnntip~rarion Services oft?ce. ?-he Application 
 Alien Employment Cwtificaf oj-i s.ha11 incl~de: 
I. 
 Ev;dence (?f preal-rangect employrnenr, for tlx alien ber~e-ficiaty by having an 
enlpioyer comnpiete and sign the,job offer descriptinr-r port:c?n of tb application fcx-1~7. 
2. Evidet~ce that notice of filing the hppiicatiurl fix Alien f?Ernplo~fne~d Certiiication 
was pruirided lo the bargai~ling representative or the enrployer's employees as prescribed 
in-r 20 C.F.R. 8 656.2iijg)(3). 
1-n this case, Form 1-140 was tiled on July 23, 2003. 
 145th the petition, cow:sel subnnttecl I'nc follctv/ing 
ducurnents: a list ofexhiblts; a U.S. Department of Labor (TJSX->L) E%'A 750 tL.43; ilLrzicles of I~corpcn-aric?n; two 
~i:-~. I t:lses; an atfve~tising brochure; a "Deciaf.atioo Regarding Fklarlcial Capacity;" a letter ~on-t ix:titi(.>ner stating 
that 3ts 70GZ corporate tax. retlirn was ~.rnavailal>ic; a baknce sheet as crrf December 3 1, .?8~12;~ three IKS Fonn 94i 
"E~nplayer's C.)mrter.ly Federal Tax Return statements for March 37. 2002, Septerrber- 30, 2003 and 3/Iarclr 3 j, 
I!na:lditcd finaixrial stiiterrlenrs are not probative of the abillty to pay the i)t-c~lfered ivage. St:!.: 8 C.F.R. 
5 204~5(g)(2). 
2003; a s:aicmeni <?(posting at the jxctitioner's ufficss in Daly 62i.j. CaIif'onlla; n "Job t2rrnourrcement" dated June 
16.2003, as u,~ll as doci;~nents cozceming the berxikiary's q~31ific;tfio~s and perso~?al idonnation. 
On Jcriy 28, 2003, the dlrecltor l~ar.rlstnitted to the peti~imrei. tu,m requests t-i?r evidence concen~ing the ability to pay 
the prol-&red wage. notice of Glirlg accmdilzg to 20 C1.F.R- 5 656,. 10(a'1(2;). CGFN certifjcate, e;npioyment letter, 
and, evi&:ice, among other things, tkt dle be-ncficiary will be einploycd to fill a specific vacancy. 
Trl respozse to the director's request. the petitioner submitted a 11,s. corporate Tax return for 2003, fillur BRS Form 
94 1 "EmyIoyer 's Qu~rter1y Federal Tax Retmr state-n1e2-it.s; and, the beneficiary's 2003 personal irscrrme kx 
re ij:s-r1. 
Further in lire response, counsel stated in the letter dated October 15.2004 that under tI:e 'Aportability"" provisions 
of the American Con-tpet;tiveness in the Twentjfirst Cerltury Act of 2000 (AC2i) {13ubiic Law 106-313) the 
beneficiary has left the petitioner, and, she is now employed by the ilniversity Convalescent Hospiktl. 
Additiowdlly, ccsunsel yrnvided financial infom-tatic~~i relating to"t1re LTnivmsity Convalescent Hospital. md he 
pl-rwided ripe kneficiory's pay stubs Irom Unitrersjt), C.'onvalescer;t 1-lospital. 
Unde-r these circlun.rsrailces. as in every petitiorr rsviewed, the subject petition is reviewed on its own merits, 
5 
tviihcwi corwicieratiorr of ths ilew job ofi-tr or the h~~ir,fidiz.~ <of the ;iew prospective emnployer. 
As additiollal evidence subn~itieil 07 response to the director's request dated 5uiy 28, 2004, courrsel provided 
3. 
[he benefkial-y's State of Cali-hrlija, ircensing as a registered nurse. 
Further relative to tiie posring, coun.isel stated that the petitloner had no bargaining representative. Counsel 
provided a :lotice of the proof of' i%ng the r.4pplica~io~~ fbr Alien Empluynrnt C'eriif?cation th~tt evidenced 
posting at the petitioner's offices at LPaly CIP]. C.:aliforrria. 
Relative to ihe director's request ro show a specific: job vacancy. coum~sel provided staffing agreements 
hetween Il~e peiilicaner and various hospitals. 
Cotmscf su3n.ritted an en~ploja~ec-tt letter Srorn the l..rr,r:lversi:;f Convalescent Hosgital dated August 12, 3004, that 
ihe be~scficiary was employed as a full iimc chargc nmse by .L;.a;t2 ei~rployer, 
011 Decembm 16, 2004. iki Do-cctcx, C'atii-i?i?mia Ser-vjce Ce~ster, issued a decisiiti~ in &is niatter, 'Ihc director 
stated illat evider:ce was not subn:itted to iien.ronst~ak ~ilat notice was posted in accos-dance with the regulatinr-t at 
20 C.F.R. 6 GZ6.?Cl(g)(l:) and (g)(8). According ro the director, :ha: postkg ivas to b~: made according to the 
reguiarior, ;it the f'acriity referenced by the i-eguiatiorr at 39 C.F.R. 4 656.20(gi(Si), ar,d; tmf as .found in this 
rase, at ;he adnrii~istrative offices of the petitioner. The director citlng Marter of Katipbak, 14 T&N Dec. 45: 
49 iC's;nn~. , - 197i), ar~d !2/firtir<r rf'Jzu~i?ii~ 22 1, 6 N. Dec. 169 (Assor:. Gomrx'r, Exa~ninatisns 1998) stated that 
-- -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 -..... 
4 ,. 
b~ncc this co:isidera~iun takes place in :Ire corltext of an rile adjtidicatinn of an aiiers's application for 
a@-istme::i of status. the proper venue for 1~3ki:g such an argunxnt is with the CIS r~ffjcial wit11 jurisdiction 
over the applicazion for adjustment. 
:' A CIS rxemorandurn signed by Williarn Ya.tss, May 12, 2005. 11-rovides tl~a~ if itle in:iinl petitiorr is 
detrrn-t~ned "approvable", then the adjustrnerit application may be altjlidicated under the fer~ns of AC2 I. See 
in!o.trn bAricl(rnee,fiv i3n>c~~,:..ssing For??? I-?'4!1 Enrpic.~ir~enf-B~~.~ed i>?:nrig;l.a?if 13i'.iirio~l.s c7rfiJ J;ix.n2 1-48.5 anif 61.- 
I'B Y~fifl'ons /i$i)i:ft.d Iy rhiz .4mericr;m Cforliivi:ritiventts.i' iti iiit) TIW?~ tif:v.sr C7erzlur,. ,.ic:r c!j'-7CjU(f (11 C2i) (l'lihlic 
Lirlv 106-313) at 7. 
rile petiiioirer n-ray ni?i n~ike material ch;iriges to the petitiorl (with its exhibits that inclrrlfe the notice oC 
posting) to make an apg;uent deficient peliiiur~ confor~n to CIS req~riren~enis. 
I'he regulatiun at 20 C'.F.R. 656.22ic) \tntci. 33 part: 
Ar: immigration Officer shall detern~inc :t;I-tetlxr the ern~tloyer and alien have met the applicable 
rcqiliremen~s of Sec. 656.28 of this pal?, nf thi:; sec:ic?rrt and of Schedule A . . . 
42) ']'he Sci~eduIe A ilezen-r~inaticm of: INS [CIS] sl-rall -be concl~~sjve and final. The e,-r,pioyer, 
theicfore, may not make use of the review proce&res at Sec. 556.26 of this pat. 
E'ulTher the diicctor huncf in his decision thzt i'ne petitioner 113s not esFdblished its ability to pay the proffered 
wage of !$52,1)0.00 for t11t: bcnefici~iry iir addition to the two already apprc?ved einployees fi-om the iincome stated 
on the peiitic?ner's tax renm submitted for 20ii3. 
& appeal, clo~msei asserts tbt the job posting confom~ed to regujafion and the labor cmification. F~trther, 
cotrilsei corrtends that thk: petitioner has the ability to pay the proffc"rc7d wage for the beneficiary and two other 
aliens or which peli:ions were Cled. 
Coni~se! specificalIy spates them is nc:, statutory or regulatory basis fo-r the C1S' interpretation of the regulation to 
mearx that post~ng WBS to be nlade according to the reguiaiion ai the ilciiity referenced by the regi~1atio1-t at 20 
C.F.R. 3 GSfi.lZO(gl(ii)." TIre regulsrfirjn ai 20 CFR 656.2Cb(gj(I)(i) ;mi3 (i-i) states rn pertinent part that 
(ii:~ If' there is no such bargzil-iing representative, by pskd nolice to the ernployerrs enrployees at 
the fiicjlity or Iocatiori of the en~p'loyn~ei~t. The ~cstice shall be posted for at leas: 10 corlscci~tive 
days. ?'he rxosice shzill be elcarIy sisrble and imobsimcted ivhile posred and shall be posted in 
cor~spicuous places, ~t~iwe the enqhj,er!s U.,$ ~,ini-;Gi:r:~ can ~eilili(\i re~rd fhe pijstec2' notice on 
fhell- a~~j~ to or ,from their pftraz of ernpicyntewt {enzphasis added]. Appropriate locations ibr 
posting notices of the job crpporttmity include, btit are not Ijrnired to, Iocation.~ in the ~~mn~ediate 
vicinity of' the wage and hour j-iotices required by 20 CF'K 516.4 or occupahonai sdety aird 
he~l th noiices required by 20 CFR I9C?lf,lE(aj. 
Since there is no eviderzce submitted the petit-ioi;er employed ihe beneficiary at the tlaiy Crty, C'alij;'orriia, 
administrative office as a nurse, the act ~jf'p~sfing notices offthe nursing work site does not sonforn-red ti? the 
le8r.r or the leg~slative inten: expressed in the above regulation. The Beneticiary will not be ernployed at the 
peritiorrer's vfiices but at sorne other location. The posting was not, tlleil: posted at the place of' employn-rent 
as required by 20 C.F.R. 6 656.20(g)(!). Tk petilimler iias indicated that the beneiiciary will tvnl-k at 
"sarioiis l-tospitals 2nd faciliiies:" without Identifying an exact location or locations wjtl-r greater specificity. 
, * 
L he petitioner rleeds trc show it posted the r:otice where the bcnefjciary would work, 2nd nrake it clear wl~ere 
that iocztion will actuaily be. Because it is ntx clear that the posting notice was posted at the actual "fjcility 
or lc!catrc>n of the en~sp!oymmt," Ole petitionel- cannot establish that li has complied with the rlotice 
requirements at 20 C.F.R. 3 66.'30(~){1). w 'If the petitioner merely posted the notice at its adrninistrative 
of'fice(s); Il-te petitioner- has no: csmplied v,ljih this recluirernenf. '?'he purpose of requiring the en:plnyer to 
post notice of tIre j~d? opportul~ity is to provide 1J.S. woikers with a rnearxingfi~l oppo~?~mi'ry to compete tilr the 
'> I 
1 he prilt~uncr pasted fhe notjcr at the adrn:r?r~trat~vc of'tices of the pct~tlonci-. 
jo!> and to aswire that the wages and working cisnditions of I,hited States workers similar-ly enployed .&-ill not 
Ise adversely atkcred by s he eri~plcryioerat oi' aliens in Schedule .A occi3patior1s.' h tile ir:stant petitioir, it is 
noted those "similarly empio:iedU would be twrses in the clien: hospitals. Ry the petitioner's actions, it 
denied j>roper notice io 1.j.S. wcxkers of this empioyrr~ent oppor:,;mity. 
The seconci issue concern's ?he director's ijnding that the petitioner has not esbal2lished its ability to pay the 
pruffercd wage of S52,00.liCj for the benriiciary in addition to the two already approved employees frcrom tlme 
income stated 019 the petitioner-'s tax rerum slibrnitted for 2003. 
Section 203(h)(3i(A)(i) of the Tntmigraiion and Wationaiity Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $3 1153{b)(3)(A)(i)? 
provides lor the granfij-tg of prefkrnce classiGcaticsn to qualified irirmigraimts who are capable, at the iinle of 
petifior~lnp for ciassificatiofi uilder this parap-aph, of pcrfoi-nlirtg skilled labor (requiring at least two years 
bainlr:g or experience), nst eil a temporal7 nature, for which quairfied workers are not available in the United 
States. 
The regujaticrrc at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5ig i(2) states irt pertirreirt pal%: 
Al:ilir:\l crfpr-ose~~crive cnz,v!c~.yt.l- 10 p(;:~) wage. Any petitro~m filed by or f T an employment- 
based immigya:~t v:hlch requires an offer of employ~lent rnusi be acconlpaniecf by etlidetzce 
that the jrrospective United States ernployer has :he ability to pay the ~irofftred wage. Xle 
petitioner must drrnol-tstrate this abilrty at the time tjse priority data. is estabijshed and 
cojsfijiuing ~lr,til tl:c benekiary obta.i~ts Yawhl perrrlailent residence. Evidelmce of this ability- 
shall be in ihe fc}r!n of copies oi' znnual reports, kderal tax retunls, or alrdited finaracial 
statemeists. 
'l'he petitiorrer lnirst demonsti-ate the conti~fiiiizg al,iljty to pay the proffired wage beginning on the priority 
& #a r: e, which is rlse daie the For111 E'i',4 750 Application for Alien Employment Cer-tification, was accepted kr 
;jracessing 134. any office within tl~e enmpioy~rient systern of the U.S. Ikpartnment of Labor. l'hc petitiorrer must 
xlsn derrronsaate that, on the p;iori'c_v date> the h~qeficiary had he qualifjcacicins siakd on its F'om ETA 750 
Application for Alien ErnpIhrymcnt Certification as ce~titified by the 1i.S. Dcy2rtment of tahor- 2nd subrxlitted with 
the instmt petition. ALu!w ifUS/rp~s 7k~2 Iji~we, 16 T&N Dec. 158 (Act. Reg. C'ornm. 1977). 
lhe proffered  ape as st2ti.d OIL the Fornt 1:Th 750 :s $25.00 per hour i552,OC)O.OO per year). 
71le prtitirji~er :<ubruitted 3 U.S. kcorne tax re?xri, Forim~ 1 1711, that stated taxable ificori~evfo 200:: as 
$28,873.00. Net current assets are caici~iated from Schedriie I, 01 the ret~a-!: as $7.36 1.00." Sii~ct. the 
' IKS Firri-rr 1120, 1,ine 2s. 
'i 
The pelirjoner also submitted a balance sheet as of Decenlbrr- 31. 2002; three IRS Fomm 941 "'Enlplnyer's 
Quarterly Federal 'i'ax Retun staten:elmts i-ix March 3 1, 2002, Sepiernber 30; 2002 anif March 3 1. 2003, hut it 
has not stateif in the record oi'proceeding or on appeal any contenlirsn relatwe to these submittals. lrx lY.C.:l? 
F'ood Co., hre. I,. Anla, [Ire court Iteld ihai the Service had properly relied on tile petitioner's net ir:con~t: 
i'j~ure, ., as stateit on the petitioner's corporate ii:co~ne tax ret~lrns, rather than ditle petjfioner's gross incmme. 
Sriprc; at 1084.. 'i9'i~e court specifically rejected the argument that CIS. sltouId have considered income before 
expenses were paid rather tharl isei incozle. The suggestion tiitla: expenses should he treated as assets availible 
to pay the ysroAPred wage is not perstiasive. Wages paid to other:; cannot he used to prove the ability the 
ability to pa:; the prrrff'ired wag?. Fur?her. the petitioner's hzs submitted the beneficiary's 2003 persoxi1 tax 
proffered wage is $52,1100.00, the proffered wage is more than tlie petitioner':: taxable income or riet cu-rent 
assets. 
C'hS rei:ords sho:.i tlsat the petitioner filed 1-140 petitiurr:: on bei:aif of two other beneiiciaoies at about the 
same tirne as rl-te Snstani peljlion was fiied. AIt!-tough the evidence in the instan! case did not indicate 
financial resources of the petiiji?ner that are greater than the bencfici3ry's proffereci wage, it would be 
necessary ibr the petitioner alsn .to establish its dgility to concur:entfy pay the proffered wage to ai:y oilier 
benef ciaxy or Ser~eficiaries for whom petitioi:~ jiase been approved or nzay be pending. When a petitiorier 
has 5ied petiiioils fciisti- lnultiple beneficiaries, it is the petitioner-'s burden to establisis its ability to pay the 
groffttrecf wage to each of the potential 'uei~eticiaries. The record in ihe instant case contains II<:, inlrormatlon 
ab~xit wages paid to other pote~~tiaj Isenefic'ia~ies of 1-1 40 petitions filed by thc petitioner, or about the priority 
dates of those petitions, or about the preseist ei-nploymerrt status of those oi'her pc?ieiatial Iseneficiar-ips. 
1,aching such evidenace? the reccxd iil the lnslanl petition would fail to estdblish the zb~lity {of the petitioner to 
pay -4'he pmfr'ered wage to the beneiiciary of the instant petitiori. 
'The evidence sijbmitted i-foes not esziblish that the petitioner had the continuirlg ability to pay the proffered 
wage begirming on the griorj'ry date. *file evidence siabm~tted dots not demonstrate that the notice of filing the 
Application for Alien C'eriificati~n was posted according to the regulation at 21) C.F.R. 3 6156,20(g)(1). 
Cnur~sel's curltentions carrrlot be concluded to ourweigh the esider~ce presented irr the coq?orate tax rcrtum as 
submitted by petitioner that shows that rhe petitioner has not dernonstra~eil its abilib- to py the prof'fired 
wage -fro3 the day the Fonn E'I'A 750 was accepted fbr processing by any office within the e~nployment 
system of il-te Department of Laboy. 
'Rre burden of proof in these prsceedings rests solely with the petitirjner. Section 291 of <he Act, 8 I1.S.C. 3 i 361. 
The petitioner has riot raet that b~ildel-t. 
OREBER: 7'1ie appeal is dismissed. 
return, pay si"t"zrr~ei:ts and other evidence of wage paynrenis bs anothrr corporation to tlre beneficiary. 'T'here 
is no evidcrice s~ibrnitted that this srccrnd corporation is the successor-in-inieresf to the petitioner. Contrary to 
counsel's prrn~al-y assertion, Citizcnrhrp and Inrmjgx-ation Ser-irices (CIS) nlay not "pierce the cc?rporate veil" 
and look to tl-te assets of tl-te c~po~atiiii~'~ i>wn'Iler to satisfy the corporation's abjljty to pay the proffered wage, 
it 1s an eiemerrtary rule that 3 corporation is a separate arrd distiltcl legal entity fronr its owners and 
shn-rel-tolders. .Set? ~Vl~ltfer of'M, 8 l&N Uec. 21 (BIA I (ISM), L\fafler (Jf Aphroclfle .Irtvi:.sl~?ienl.s, Lrd., 17 I&S 
Dee. 530 {Col-t~rn. 1980), and bfclrter oj'?''l;~.j.~t;l, 17 I&% Dec. 63 Z (Act. Assoc. Coinnt. 1960). Canseyuen~ly, 
assets of its shareholders or of other. enterprises or corporations cannot be considered in iletcnnirrirrg the 
petitioning coq?ora~ion's ability to pay dte proffered wage. S:!c Matier cfApiir.c?dit It?vz.itrnent.s, Lrc-l., 17 
&N Dec. 530 (Cornin. 1980). In a sin~iiar case, the court in Siii:trr I;. Ashc,-r~fifl'. 2003 WL 27203'913 (Ib.Mass. 
Sepl. 18. 3003) slated. "nothing in tire govcrnil-lg regulation, S C.F.R. Zij4.5, perrllils WISj to consider the 
firrar:c-ial resources of individuals or eirtities wiro have rro legal obligation to pay ihe wage."