dismissed EB-3 Case: Nursing

PUBLJC COPY 
U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional pursuant to section 
203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(3) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
I 
, 
i 
\. / 
.-C %&h 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center, and is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a medical staffing service. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United 
States as a registered nurse. The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary qualifies for blanket labor certification 
pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 9 656.10, Schedule A, Group I. As required by statute, a Form ETA 750, Application 
for Alien Employment Certification accompanied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner had 
not established that it had filed the posting notice for the proffered position as prescribed by 20 C.F.R. $3 
656.20(g)(l), (g)(3) and (g)(8). Thus, the director determined that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the 
position qualified for Schedule A certification, and denied the petition accordingly. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief statement and additional evidence.' 
Section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii), 
provides for granting of preference classification to qualified immigrants who hold baccalaureate degrees and 
who are members of the professions. 
In this case, the petitioner filed an Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form 1-140) for classification of the 
beneficiary under section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act as a registered nurse on July 29, 2003. Aliens who will 
be permanently employed as professional nurses are listed on Schedule A as occupations set forth at 
20 C.F.R. tj 656.10 for which the Director of the United States Employment Service has determined that there 
are not sufficient United States workers who are able, willing, qualified and available, and that the 
employment of aliens in such occupations will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of 
United States workers similarly employed. Also, according to 20 C.F.R. 8 656.10, aliens who will be 
permanently employed as professional nurses must have (1) passed the Commission on Graduates of Foreign 
Nursing Schools (CGFNS) Examination, or (2) hold a full and unrestricted license to practice professional 
nursing in the [sltate of intended employment. 
An employer shall apply for a labor certification for a Schedule A occupation by filing an Application for Alien 
Employment Certification (Form ETA-750 at Part A) in duplicate with the appropriate Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) office. The Application for Alien Employment Certification shall include: 
1. 
 Evidence of prearranged employment for the alien beneficiary by having an employer complete 
and sign the job offer description portion of the application form. 
2. 
 Evidence that notice of filing the Application for Alien Employment Certification was provided 
to the bargaining representative or the employer's employees as prescribed in 20 C.F.R. 3 
656.20(g)(3). 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. 3 656.20(g)(l) provides, in pertinent part, 
I 
 The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to the Form I-290B, which 
are incorporated into the regulations by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(a)(l). The record in the instant case 
provides no reason to preclude consideration of any of the documents newly submitted on appeal. See Matter 
of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). The AAO will first evaluate the decision of the director, based on the 
evidence submitted prior to the director's decision. The evidence submitted for the first time on appeal will then 
be considered. 
In applications filed under 5 656.21 (Basic Process), 5 656.21a (Special Handling) and 5 656.22 
(Schedule A), the employer shall document that notice of the filing of the Application for Alien 
Employment Certification was provided: 
(i) To the bargaining representative(s) (if any) of the employer's employees in the occupational 
classification for which certification of the job opportunity is sought in the employer's 
location(s) in the area of intended employment. 
(ii) If there is no such bargaining representative, by posted notice to the employer's employees 
at the facility or location of the employment. The notice shall be posted for at least 10 
consecutive days. The notice shall be clearly visible and unobstructed while posted and shall be 
posted in conspicuous places, where the employer's U.S. workers can readily read the posted 
notice on their way to or from their place of employment. Appropriate locations for posting 
notices of the job opportunity include, but are not limited to, locations in the immediate vicinity 
of the wage and hour notices required by 20 CFR 516.4 or occupational safety and health 
notices required by 20 CFR 1903.2(a). 
With the petition, the petitioner submitted a document entitled "Notice of Available Positions." This notice 
was addressed to all employees of and stated there were 143 vacancies for 
the position of registered nurse as of June 25, 2003. The document further stated the general and specific 
- 
duties of the position, along with minimum requirements, special requirements, pay rate, or conditions, and 
where to apply for the registered nurse position. The pay rate was 
also submitted a notice dated July 17, 2003, and signed by 
PresidentiCEO. This notice, entitled "Employer's Certification 
- - 
Requirement," stated the following: 
I hereby certify that this notice was posted in a conspicuous place at all of the offices of 
for a period of ten (10) consecutive days. The job notice 
remained clearly visible and unobstructed during the entire period of posting. 
On September 23, 2004, the director denied the petition. In his decision, the director stated that the petitioner 
had not submitted evidence that the job posting was posted in accordance with 20 C.F.R. 9 656.20(g)(l), and 
that the record indicated that the notice of filing was posted at the petitioner's administrative offices. The 
director further stated that CIS interprets the "facility or location of the employment" referenced at 20 C.F.R. 
9 656.20(g)(l)(ii) to mean the place of physical employment. The director noted that in the instant case, the 
place of physical employment would be the healthcare facilities where the beneficiary would perform services 
as a registered nurse. The director then determined that the record indicated that the notice of filing had not 
been posted at the correct location. The director also stated that the notice had to be posted at least ten 
consecutive days prior to filing with the appropriate information contained in the notice, and that any 
subsequent effort by the petitioner to correct the notice of posting would constitute a material change to the 
petition. If the petitioner was not already eligible when the petition was filed, subsequent developments 
cannot retroactively establish eligibility as of the filing date. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg. Com. 197 1 .) 
On appeal, lists eight reasons why the petitioner is not required to post its job notice at the 
hospital where the beneficiary will be employed. The reasons are summarized as follows: 
Page 4 
1. Prior to September 23, 2004, the placement of the petitioner's job posting at its place of business 
was never questioned, and the petitioner has received more than six hundred twenty-five approvals 
on 1-140 positions filed on behalf of registered nurses. The CIS requirement to file the posting 
notice started on September 23,2004; however, the instant petition was filed on July 29, 2003. 
2. The beneficiary was hired as an employ 
2003, and the petitioner is her 
wage of $22.17 exceeded the 
beneficiary's specific geographical location in the job posting. 
3. Although the beneficiary worked at Irvine Regional Hospital and Medical Center (IRHMC) in 
Irvine, California, she was not an employee of IRHMC, but rather worked there on a contractual 
basis. 
4. The petitioner makes sure that all its employees are well aware of job openings. All the nursing 
staff is required to report for work in person or via telephone each work day or week so that they 
can be then assigned to a specific client hospital. 
5. The petitioner posts the job posting in all of its places of business so that any qualified applicant 
for the job opportunity could be directed directly the petitioner, as the employer, or to the 
petitioner's employment interviewer. 
6. The petitioner does not own the hospital facilities where its nursing staff is assigned. 
 The 
to post notices nor does the petitioner have access to hospital bulletin 
boards. 
 added that the petitioner was in no position to post job notices at the client's 
hospital facilities, which could be a serious 
 staffing contract with the 
client hospital because there is a conflict of interest. 
 states that the petitioner may only 
post such notices at the sole discretion of 
7.m 
tates that although 20 C.F.R. 656.22 states that the job notice must be posted at the 
aci ity or ocation of employment", the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) 
states that "the e 
 ocument that it has posted a notice of the job opportunity at its 
place of business.' 
 submits a copy of a page of the BALCA Deskbook in support of 
this interpretatio 
8. 
 refers to In the Matter of Bison TurfFun Co. Inc 90 INA 280, a BALCA decision 
and states that BALCA in this decision confirmed that the job notice must be posted at the 
employer's place of business. 
then states that in order to comply with the CIS requirement in the future, the petitioner has 
negotiated with its client hospitals and they have agreed 
 job notices at their premises as 
of the date of letter, and in the future. 
 asserts that even though the petitioner 
posted the job notice at its business premises for the 
 and the regulations do not 
require the petitioner to post the notice at its client hospitals, the petitioner is willing to comply with the new 
CIS requirement in its next filings. then requested that the instant petition be approved. 
bits the beneficiary's payroll summary for the period of October 27, 2003 to October 18, 
2004. The summary indicates the beneficiary's total gross pay for this period is $42,135.20. 
Page 5 
submits an excerpt from the Department of Labor (DOL) OnLine Wage Library (OWL) that indicates the 
wage for a Level One registered nurse in Orange County is $21.3 1 an hour, while the wage for a Level Two 
an hour. 
 also submits a copy of ~greement for Supplemental 
and T,enet California, Inc., a Delaware corporation2. Finally, as 
submits two pages printed from the BALCA Deskbook that discusses DOL 
regulatory requirements for a posting notice. This latter document refers to the BALCA decision Bison 
Fun/Turf Co. Inc. 90-INA-280 (April 19, 1991) and the discussion in this decision as to why the posting 
requirement cannot be avoided based on use of a wider means of publication. 
The record contains no indication that the petitioner's nurses are represented by collective bargaining. The 
Form ETA 750 states, at Item 7, Address Where Alien Will Work, "see Exhibit 2 (Petitioner's Notice of 
Available Positions)." Exhibit two is the posting of the proffered position. That posting states that the "RN 
will report to Employer at its address at Orange County for daily or weekly assignments at various hospitals 
or facilities." The certification attached to that posting states that it was posted at the petitioner's offices for a 
period of ten consecutive days. The certification does not state the dates during which the notice was posted. 
The certification itself, however, is executed July 17,2003. 
The beneficiary will not be employed at the petitioner's offices but at some other location. The posting was 
not, then, posted at the place of employment as required by 20 C.F.R. 9 656.20(g)(l)(ii). The petitioner has 
indicated that the beneficiary will work at "various hospitals and facilities," without identifying an exact location 
or locations with greater specificity. The petitioner needs to show it posted the notice where the beneficiary 
would work, and make it clear where that location will actually be. Because it is not clear that the posting notice 
was posted at the actual "facility or location of the employment," the petitioner cannot establish that it has 
complied with the notice requirements at 20 C.F.R. 5 656.20(g)(l)(ii). If the petitioner merely posted the notice 
at its administrative office(s), the petitioner has not complied with this requirement. The purpose of requiring the 
employer to post notice of the job opportunity is to provide U.S. workers with a meaningful opportunity to 
compete for the job and to assure that the wages and worlung conditions of United States workers similarly 
employed will not be adversely affected by the employment of aliens in Schedule A oc~u~ations.~ In the instant 
petition, it is noted those "similarly employed" would be nurses in the client hospitals. 
With regard to the assertions of the petitioner's president, none of the eight reasons listed as reasons why the 
petitioner does not have to post its job notices at the beneficiary's actual place of employment, are persuasive. 
The fact that the petitioner's posting notice was not questioned until September 2004 does not support a positive 
finding as to the posting of the notice for the instant petition. The fact that the petitioner is the actual employer of 
the beneficiary is not in question; however, ths fact would not negate the petitioner's responsibility to post the job 
notice at the actual place of employment so as to provide the U.S. workers that are "similarly employed" with an 
opportunity to comment on the posting. The fact that the petitioner has posted job notices in its administrative 
offices does not establish that the petitioner fulfilled the regulatory criteria for posting notices identified at 20 
C.F.R. 5 656,20(g)(l)(ii). The BALCA excerpt submitted by the petitioner that refers to Bison Turf/Fun Co., 
Inc. also does not appear relevant to the proceedings. The two mentions of Bison TurfFun Co. in the BALCA 
excerpt refer to posting requirements that cannot be avoided based on either company policy or the use of a 
wider means of publicizing available job openings. Zn addition, the petitioner does not state how the 
- 
2 
 Irvine Regional Hospital is listed as one of the participating hospitals Tenet California, Inc. owns andfor 
operates. 
See the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-649, 122(b)(l), 1990 Stat. 358 (1990); see also Labor 
Certification Process for the Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States and Implementation of the 
Immigration Act of 1990, 56 Fed. Reg. 32,244 (July 15, 1991). 
Page 6 
Department of Labor's (DOL) BALCA precedent decision would be binding on the AAO. While 8 C.F.R. $ 
103.3(c) provides that precedent decisions of CIS are binding on all its employees in the administration of the 
Act, BALCA decisions are not similarly binding. Furthermore, as correctly noted by the director, a petitioner 
must establish the elements for the approval of the petition at the time of filing. A petition may not be 
approved if the beneficiary was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a 
subsequent time. Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The director's decision shall stand, and the petition 
will be denied. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that it has the ability to pay the 
proffered wage as of the priority date and onward. An application or petition that fails to comply with the 
technical requirements of the law may be denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all 
of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 299 F. Supp. 
2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 
n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). In the instant petition, the 
petitioner has not established that it has the ability to pay the proffered wage. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(g)(2) states: 
Ability of prospective employer to pay wage. Any petition filed by or for an employment-based 
immigrant which requires an offer of employment must be accompanied by evidence that the 
prospective United States employer has the ability to pay the proffered wage. The petitioner 
must demonstrate thls ability at the time the priority date is established and continuing until the 
beneficiary obtains lawhl permanent residence. Evidence of this ability shall be either in the 
form of copies of annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements. In a case 
where the prospective United States employer employs 100 or more workers, the director may 
accept a statement from a financial officer of the organization which establishes the prospective 
employer's ability to pay the proffered wage. In appropriate cases, additional evidence, such as 
profitlloss statements, bank account records, or personnel records, may be submitted by the 
petitioner or requested by [CIS]. 
The petitioner must demonstrate the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on the priority 
date, the day the completed, signed petition, including all initial evidence and the correct fee, was filed with 
CIS. See 8 CFR 5 204.5(d). Here, the petition was filed with CIS on July 29, 2003. The proffered wage as 
stated on the Form ETA 750 is $22.17 per hour, which equals $46,113.60 per year. 
On the petition, the petitioner stated that it was established on January 30, 1996 and that it emplo s 531 
workers. 
 In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a letter, dated July 21, 2003, from 
as RN, President/CEO. That letter stated that the petitioner has the ability to pay the proffered wage, 
h stating t at it has eight branch offices, and that in 2002 the petitioner derived a net income of $584,366 and 
for the five month period ending May 3 1,2003, generated gross revenue of $1 1.5 million. 
In general, 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(g)(2) requires annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements 
as evidence of a petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. That provides further provides: "In a case 
where the prospective United States employer employs 100 or more workers, the director may accept a 
statement from a financial officer of the organization which establish the prospective employer's ability to 
pay the proffered wage." (Emphasis added.) 
Given the record as a whole and the petitioner's history of filing petitions, we find that CIS need not exercise 
its discretion to accept the letter from the petitioner's CEO. CIS records indicate that the petitioner filed 93 
Form 1-140 petitions during 2002, 140 such petitions during 2003, and another 57 petitions during 2004. 
Consequently, CIS must also take into account the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wages in the 
context of its overall recruitment efforts. Presumably, the petitioner has filed and obtained approval of the 
labor certifications on the representation that it requires all of these workers and intends to employ them upon 
approval of the petitions. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to demonstrate that it has the ability 
to pay the wages of all of the individuals it is seeking to employ. If we examine only the salary requirements 
relating to the 1-140 petitions, the petitioner would be need to establish that it has the ability to pay combined 
salaries of $5,810,313.60 in 2003 alone. Given that the number of immigrant and nonirnrnigrant petitions 
reflects an increase of the petitioner's workforce, we cannot rely on a letter from CEO referencing the ability 
to pay a single unnamed beneficiary. 
As we decline to rely on 
 letter, we will examine the other financial documentation submitted. 
The record contains a 
 the petitioner's 2002 Form 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S 
Corporation. That return shows that the pe;itioner declared ordinary income of $584,366 during that year. 
The corresponding Schedule L shows that at the end of that year the petitioner's current assets were 
$3,952,387, its current liabilities were $4,059,784, and the petitioner's net current assets were -$107,784. The 
petitioner also submitted a Form 941 for the first quarter of 2003 which indicated the petitioner had 626 
employees and paid total wages of $5,031,328.66 in that quarter. 
In determining the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage during a given period, CIS will examine 
whether the petitioner employed the beneficiary during that period. If the petitioner establishes by 
documentary evidence that it employed the beneficiary at a salary equal to or greater than the proffered wage, 
the evidence will be considered prima facie proof of the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. In the 
instant case the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's payroll summary for the period from October 27, 2003 
to October 18, 2004. The payroll summary shows that the petitioner paid the beneficiary $42,135.20 during 
the thirteen months period. The petitioner failed to establish that it paid the full proffered wage in 2003 or 
2004. It failed to demonstrate that it paid the beneficiary the full proffered wage during the thirteen (13) 
months from October 2003 to October 2004. Therefore, the petitioner did not establish that it paid the 
beneficiary a salary equal to or greater than the proffered wage as of the priority date and onward. 
If the petitioner does not establish that it employed and paid the beneficiary an amount at least equal to the 
proffered wage during that period, the AAO will, in addition, examine the net income figure reflected on the 
petitioner's federal income tax return, without consideration of depreciation or other expenses. CIS may rely 
on federal income tax returns to assess a petitioner's ability to pay a proffered wage. Elatos Restaurant Corp. 
v. Sava, 632 F.Supp. 1049, 1054 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (citing Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldrnan, 736 
F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1984)); see also Chi-Feng Chang v. Thornburgh, 719 F.Supp. 532 (N.D. Texas 1989); 
K.C.P. Food Co., Inc. v. Sava, 623 F.Supp. 1080 (S.D.N.Y. 1985); Ubeda v. Palmer, 539 F.Supp. 647 (N.D. 
Ill. 1982), affd, 703 F.2d 571 (7th Cir. 1983). 
Showing that the petitioner's gross receipts exceeded the proffered wage is insufficient. Similarly, showing 
that the petitioner paid wages in excess of the proffered wage is insufficient. In K.C.P. Food Co., Inc. v. 
Sava, 623 F. Supp. at 1084, the court held that the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now CIS, had 
properly relied on the petitioner's net income figure, as stated on the petitioner's corporate income tax returns, 
rather than the petitioner's gross income. The court specifically rejected the argument that CIS should have 
considered income before expenses were paid rather than net income. Finally, no precedent exists that would 
allow the petitioner to add back to net cash the depreciation expense charged for the year. Chi-Feng Chang at 
537. See also Elatos Restaurant, 623 F. Supp. at 1054. 
Page 8 
As stated previously, the petitioner submitted its 2002 federal income tax return to the record. Since the 
Schedule A petition was filed in 2003, the petitioner's financial resources in 2002 are not dispositive. 
However, since the 2002 return is the only reliable documentary evidence contained in the record pertinent to 
petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage, it shall be accorded some evidentiary value. 
The petitioner declared ordinary income of $584,366 during 2002. Thus, the petitioner's net income for 2002 
is sufficient to cover many proffered wages; however, CIS computer records show that the petitioner filed 93 
Form 1-140 petitions during 2002, 140 such petitions during 2003, and another 57 petitions during 2004. 
Thus, in 2003 alone, the petitioner has to establish that it has sufficient financial resources to pay the 
beneficiaries of 140 petitions. Assuming the other beneficiaries of other petitions filed in 2003 would earn a 
salary approximate to the one proffered to the beneficiary in the instant petition, namely $46,113.60, the 
petitioner would need a net income of $6,455,904 in 2003 to pay the salaries of 140 registered nurses. The 
petitioner's net income in 2002 was insufficient to pay such proffered wages and the petitioner did not submit 
evidence of such net income in 2003. Thus, the petitioner failed to demonstrate its ability to pay the proffered 
wages of all the beneficiaries for whom the petitioner filed 1-140 petitions in 2003. 
The petitioner's net income, however, is not the only statistic that may be used to show the petitioner's ability 
to pay the proffered wage. If the petitioner's net income, if any, during a given period, added to the wages 
paid to the beneficiary during the period, if any, do not equal the amount of the proffered wage or more, the 
AAO will review the petitioner's assets as an alternative method of demonstrating the ability to pay the 
proffered wage. 
The petitioner's total assets, however, are not available to pay the proffered wage. The petitioner's total 
assets include those assets the petitioner uses in its business, which will not, in the ordinary course of 
business, be converted to cash, and will not, therefore, become funds available to pay the proffered wage. 
Only the petitioner's current assets, those expected to be converted into cash within a year, may be 
considered. Further, the petitioner's current assets cannot be viewed as available to pay wages without 
reference to the petitioner's current liabilities, those liabilities projected to be paid within a year. CIS will 
consider the petitioner's net current assets, its current assets net of its current liabilities, in the determination 
of the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. 
As previously stated, the corresponding Schedule L shows that at the end of 2002 the petitioner's current 
assets were $3,952,387, its current liabilities were $4,059,784, and the petitioner's net current assets were 
-$107,784. Upon review of the record, the petitioner has shown considerable growth in recent years. No 
reason exists to assume that the petitioner will cease to grow. The petitioner's assertion, however, is that it 
will enjoy vast growth and continue to be profitable. In view of the fact that the petitioner is seeking approval 
of a large number of petitions, the petitioner must demonstrate the truth of that assertion in order to prevail. 
Assuming that the petitioner's business will flourish so markedly that it will be able to continue to add large 
numbers of aliens to its payroll and remain profitable is speculation. 
The petitioner's 2002 ordinary income, although substantial, is insufficient to show the ability to pay the 
proffered wages of such a large number of beneficiaries. The petitioner has submitted no other reliable 
evidence pertinent to its ability to pay the proffered wage. The petitioner has not demonstrated its continuing 
ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on the priority date. 
With regard to 2003, the priority year for the instant petition, the petitioner submitted no copies of annual 
reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements. With the petition, however, the petitioner 
submitted the letters from its president and its financial officer stating that it has the ability to pay the 
Page 9 
proffered wage. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 204.5(g)(2) states that such a letter may suffice to demonstrate 
the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. 
 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(g)(2) states that CIS may require 
additional evidence in appropriate cases. However, as previously noted, CIS computer records show that the 
petitioner filed 93 Form 1-140 petitions during 2002, 140 such petitions during 2003, and another 57 petitions 
during 2004. The instant case appears to be an appropriate instance to require evidence to support the 
statements of the president and the financial officer, primarily because the petitioner has filed multiple alien 
worker petitions. 
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that a notice of the proffered position was posted in accordance with 20 
C.F.R. 5 656.20(g)(I). The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that it has the ability to pay the wages 
proffered to the beneficiaries for whom it petitioned in 2003. For all of these reasons the petition may not be 
approved. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.