dismissed EB-3 Case: Telecommunications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-G-M-&C- LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 26, 2015 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of contract placements to telecommunications network operators, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as vice president of business development under the immigrant 
classification of skilled worker. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i).1 The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The Director concluded that the record did not establish the Beneficiary's qualifications for the 
offered position as specified on the accompanying ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent 
Employment Certification (labor certification), certified by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 
The Director also found that the record did not demonstrate the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay 
the proffered wage from the petition's priority date onward. Accordingly, the Director denied the 
petition on April 1, 2015. 
The record shows that the appeal is properly filed and alleges specific errors in law and fact. The 
record documents the case's procedural history, which is incorporated into the decision. We will 
elaborate on the procedural history only as necessary. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See, e.g., Soltane v. Dep't of Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 
145 (3d Cir. 2004). We consider all pertinent evidence of record, including new evidence properly 
submitted on appeal. 2 
I. THE BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFYING EXPERIENCE 
A beneficiary must meet all the requirements of an offered position specified on an accompanying 
labor certification by a petition's priority date. 8 C.F.R §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); see also Matter of 
1 
Section 203(b )(3)(A)(i) of the Act provides preference classification to qualified immigrants who are capable of 
performing permanent, skilled labor (requiring at least two years training or experience), for which qualified workers are 
unavailable in the United States. 
2 The instructions to Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, which are incorporated into the regulations by 8 C.F.R. § 
I 03 .2(a)(l ), allow submission of additional evidence on appeal. 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-G-M-&C- LLC 
Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
In evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications, we must examine the job offer portion of a labor 
certification to determine the minimum requirements of the offered position. We may neither ignore 
a term of the labor certification, nor impose additional requirements. See K R. K Irvine, Inc. v. 
Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1983); Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1010-12 (D.C. Cir. 
1983); Stewart Infra-Red Commissary of Mass., Inc. v. Coomey, 661 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1981). 
The instant petition's priority date is February 15, 2013, which is the date the DOL accepted the 
accompanying labor certification application for processing. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(d). The labor 
certification states the minimum requirements of the offered position of vice president of business 
development as a high school diploma or a foreign equivalent, plus at least 120 months of 
experience in the job offered. 
The Beneficiary attested on the labor certification to about 147 months of full-time, qualifying 
experience before starting work for the Petitioner in the offered position on April 23, 2012. He 
stated that he gained the following experience: 
• About eight months as director, sales solutions for . in the United States from 
August 28, 2011 to April 17, 2012; 
• About 22 months as a systems design & performance engineer for in the 
United States from October 21,2009 to August 20, 2011; 
• About 19 months as a Utran/OSS SME for in the United States from 
March 10, 2008 to October 20, 2009; 
• About 72 months as a senior data center engineer for 
March 2, 2002 to March 8, 2008; and 
• About 26 months as an RMC enhancement engineer for 
Kingdom from January 2, 2000 to March 2, 2002. 
in the United Kingdom from 
in the United 
A petitioner must support a beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience with letters from employers. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A); see also 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(g)(l). The letters must provide the names, 
addresses, and titles of the employers, and a description of a beneficiary's experience. !d. 
If a required document is unavailable, a petitioner must demonstrate its unavailability ahd submit 
pertinent secondary evidence, such as government or business records. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). If 
secondary evidence is also unavailable, a petitioner must demonstrate the unavailability of secondary 
evidence and submit two or more affidavits by non-parties who have direct personal knowledge of the 
events and circumstances. !d. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner submitted letters in support of the Beneficiary's claimed experience 
on the stationeries of and Together, these letters document 
about 41 months of qualifying experience. However, the record does not contain letters from the 
Beneficiary's three other claimed former employers: 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-G-M-& C- LLC 
Affidavits by the Beneficiary, dated October 16, 2014, accompanied the petition and attest to his 
claimed experience with In response to the Director's notice of 
intent to deny (NOID), dated February 18, 2015, the Petitioner also submitted copies of: the 
Beneficiary's purported business card; a letter from his purported former supervisor at 
and letters from two purported clients of his when he worked at 
However, the evidence is insufficient to establish the Beneficiary 's claimed qualifying experience 
with Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i), the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate the unavailability of required experience letters from those employers or of secondary 
evidence of his employment, such as payroll or tax records. 
In the Petitioner's appellate brief, counsel asserts that "the Employment Verification letters are not 
available for and However, counsel's assertion 
does 
not constitute evidence of the letters' unavailability. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188 n.6 
(1984) (stating that counsel 's unsupported assertions do not establish facts of record). The record 
does not contain documentation of unsuccessful attempts to obtain experience letters from the 
employers or other evidence of the unavailability of the required or secondary documentation . 
Also, the Beneficiary 's affidavits are self-serving and do not reflect independent, objective evidence 
of his qualifying experience at The Beneficiary previously 
attested to his qualifying experience on the accompanying labor certification. The regulations 
require corroborating, documentar y evidence from the claimed employers . 
In addition, the record does not establish the claimed relationships between the Beneficiary and his 
purported former clients and supervisor who signed letters on his behalf. Their letters are written on 
personal stationery. The record does not corroborate their claimed employers during the time the 
Beneficiary purportedly worked at or their claimed relationships to the 
Beneficiary. See Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (stating that 
uncorroborated assertions are insufficient to meet the burden of proof in visa petition proceedings). 
Further, the signatory of the undated experience letter from appears to be the 
same person who signed the Form I-140, Petition for Alien Worker, and the accompanying labor 
certification for the Petitioner. The letter's signatory and the Petitioner 's vice president of 
recruitment have the same name, and their signatures appear to be identical. The signatory' s 
apparent involvement and interest in the instant petition casts doubt on the objectivity of the 
experience letter from 
The Petitioner argues that the affidavits of record are sufficient to establish the Beneficiary 's 
qualifying experience for the offered position . Citing Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. 
Supp. 7 (D.D.C. 1988), the Petitioner asserts that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) must investigate the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience 
before it can legally reject 
the contents of the affidavits and deny the petition . 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-G-M-& C- LLC 
Contrary to the Petitioner 's argument, we need not follow Lu-Ann. U.S. District Court decisions 
lack precedential value, even in their own districts. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 718 (BIA 
1993).3 Moreover, the facts in Lu-Ann distinguish it from the instant case. 
In Lu-Ann, the Service revoked a petition 's approval despite the petitioner 's submission of affidavits 
from the beneficiary 's former employer and from witnesses recanting their prior testimony of the 
beneficiary 's lack of qualifying experience with the employer. Lu-Ann, 705 F. Supp. at 8-9. The 
district court remanded the matter, finding that the Service erred in requiring additional, 
contemporaneous evidence ofthe beneficiary 's qualifying experience where it already possessed an 
employer affidavit stating the experience as required by regulation. Jd. at 11. 
Unlike the petitioner in Lu-Ann, the instant Petitioner did not meet regulatory requirements. See 8 
C.F.R. §§ 204.5(g)(l), (1)(3)(ii)(A) (requiring a petitioner to support a beneficiary's claimed qualifying 
experience with letters from employers). The Petitioner did not provide the regulatory required 
employer letters to support all of the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience. Also unlike in Lu­
Ann, USCIS did not require the instant Petitioner to provide additional, contemporaneous evidence of 
the Beneficiary's qualifying experience. Thus, even if Lu-Ann had precedential value, we would find 
the decision inapplicable to this matter. We therefore reject the Petitioner's argument that the 
affidavits of record establish the Beneficiary's qualifying experience. 
As indicated in the Director's NOID and decision, the record also does not establish the 
Beneficiary's qualifying experience in the job offered, as opposed to as an engineer. 
The accompanying labor certification states that the offered position involves managing the 
Petitioner 's "business development organization ," participating in setting the company 's "strategic 
direction," spearheading business development initiatives, supervising revenue generation, managing 
complex contract negotiations , and establishin g "the style and approach" of the company's "dealings 
with the marketplace. " The labor certification states that experience in an alternate occupation is 
unacceptable. 
However, the labor certification and the letters from former employers, clients, and supervisors 
indicate that much of the Beneficiary 's experience involved engineering , rather than business 
development. The Petitioner also submitted a September 9, 2009, evaluation by 
a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at The evaluation 
concludes that the Beneficiary 's employment experience equates to a U.S. Bachelor of Science 
degree in electrical engineering. 
3 The Director's decision mistakenly indicates that Lu-Ann's precedential value turns on whether the decision was 
published. Even if published like Lu-Ann, U.S. District Court decisions lack precedential value . See K-S-, 20 l&N Dec. 
at 718 (findin g that "district court judge s are not bound by the published decisions of their colleagues , even in the same 
district") (emphasis added) . 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-G-M-&C- LLC 
In response to the NOID, the Petitioner submitted another evaluation of the Beneficiary's 
employment experience . The March 18, 2015, evaluation by , 
a professor 
of management at , notes that the Beneficiary's resume and experience letters 
state his performance of some management duties with prior employers. stated that 
he sees "clear similarities" among the duties of the offered position and the Beneficiary's prior 
positions. However, the evaluation does not specifically conclude that the Beneficiary possessed 
120 months of experience in the job offered when he began working for the Petitioner in the offered 
position. 
The Petitioner argues that "[t]he experience [the Beneficiary] received in Engineering is required in 
order to fulfill his role as VP of Business Development." The Petitioner submitted a copy of its 
application for a prevailing wage determination, which states that the offered position requires 120 
months of experience in "Electrical/Electronic/Telecom Engineering." 4 
However, DOL regulations required the Petitioner to state the "actual minimum requirements" of the 
offered position on the accompanying ETA Form 9089. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(1) (stating that 
the job requirements stated on a labor certification "must represent the employer's actual minimum 
requirements for the job opportunity"). As previously indicated, USCIS examines the plain 
language of the job offer portion of a labor certification to determine the minimum requirements of 
an offered position. See K.R.K. Irvine, 699 F.2d at 1009; Madany, 696 F.2d at 1010-12; Stewart 
Infra-Red, 661 F.2d at 3. 
A petitioner may not require skills or experience beyond those indicated on an accompanying ETA 
Form 9089 and presumably advertised to U.S. workers . See Matter of Latin Am. Enters., Inc., 2008-
INA-00082, 2008 WL 627130, **3-5 (BALCA Mar. 3, 2008) (finding that all job duties and 
requirements must be known to U.S. workers). Therefore, the Petitioner's requirement of 
engineering experience on its prevailing wage application does not supersede the plain language of 
the labor certification, which only states the acceptability of experience in the offered position of 
vice president of business development. 
The Petitioner also argues that the ETA Form 9089 does not contain space to require engineering 
experience for the offered position. However, contrary to the Petitioner's argument, the form 
includes fields in which employers may indicate acceptable experience in "alternate occupations," as 
well as "specific skills or other requirements." See ETA Form 9089, Parts H. I 0, H.l4. Therefore , 
we also reject this argument. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish the Beneficiary's qualifying experience for 
the offered position as specified on the accompanying labor certification by the petition's priority 
date. We will therefore affirm the Director's denial of the petition on this ground. 
4 Employers must obtain a prevailing wage determination for an offered position before filing a labor certification 
application. See 20 C.F.R . §§ 656.1 O(c)(l) , 656.40. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-G-M-&C- LLC 
II. THE BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFYING EDUCATION 
The Director also found that the record did not establish the Beneficiary's qualifying education for 
the offered position by the petition's priority date. 
Besides experience in the job offered, the accompanying labor certification states that the offered 
position requires a high school diploma or the foreign equivalent. The record includes a copy of a 
"Certificate of Secondary Education" and four "General Certificate[s] of Education" at "Ordinary 
Level[s]"from the United Kingdom. 
The Certificate of Secondary Education indicates the Beneficiary's passage of examinations in five 
subjects (biology, chemistry, environmental studies, French, and mathematics) in 1982. The General 
Certificates of Education indicate his receipt of grades in four more subjects (mathematics, English 
language, English literature, and commerce) in 1982 and 1983. 
The record also contains a March 10, 2015, evaluation of the Beneficiary's foreign education 
credentials by for The evaluation concludes that the 
Beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a U.S. high school diploma. 
We may treat expert testimony as an advisory opinion. See Matter of Caron Int 'l Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, if expert testimony is inconsistent with other evidence or 
questionable in any way, we may disregard it or afford it less evidentiary weight. !d.; see also 
Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.l3 (BIA 2011) (stating that expert testimony may be 
afforded different evidentiary weight depending on the extent of the expert's qualifications or the 
relevance, reliability, and probative value ofthe testimony). 
In the instant case, the education evaluation is inconsistent with the record. The evaluation states the 
Beneficiary's receipt of "a General Certificate of Education degree" in 1982. However, as 
previously discussed, the record shows the Beneficiary's receipt of a "Certificate of Secondary 
Education" in 1982 and four "General Certificate[ s] of Education" in 1982 and 1983. The 
evaluation does not explain which of the Beneficiary's credentials it considers to be "a General 
Certificate of Education degree." See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) (holding 
that a petitioner must resolve inconsistencies of record by independent , objective evidence). 
However, we reviewed the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) created by the 
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). AACRAO is 
a non-profit, voluntary, professional association of more than 11,000 higher education professionals 
who represent approximately 2,600 institutions in more than 40 countries. See Am. Ass'n of 
Collegiate Registrars & Admissions Officers, at http://www.aacrao.org/membership/join-aacrao 
(accessed Oct. 21, 20 15). EDGE is "a web-based resource for the evaluation of foreign educational 
credentials, " the content of which is reviewed by AACRAO's National Council on the Evaluation of 
Foreign Educational Credentials before publication . !d. , at http://edge.aacrao.org/info.php (accessed 
Matter of N-G-M-&C- LLC 
Oct. 21, 2015). Federal courts have found EDGE to be a reliable, peer-reviewed source of 
information about foreign credentials equivalencies. 5 
EDGE states that a Certificate of Secondary Education in the United Kingdom is comparable to 
completion of senior high school in the United States. 
Based on the information in EDGE, we find that the record establishes the Beneficiary's possession 
of the foreign equivalent of a U.S. high school diploma by the petition's priority date. We will 
therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
III. THE PETITIONER'S ABILITY TO PAY THE PROFFERED WAGE 
A petitioner must also establish its continuing ability to pay a proffered wage from a petition's 
priority date until a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). 
Evidence of ability to pay must include copies of annual reports, federal income tax returns, or 
audited financial statements. !d. 
In determining a petitioner's ability to pay, we first examine whether it paid a beneficiary the full 
proffered wage each year from the petition's priority date. If the petitioner did not pay the 
beneficiary the full proffered wage each year, we examine whether it had sufficient annual net 
income or net current asset amounts to pay the difference between the wage paid, if any, and the 
proffered wage.6 If a petitioner's annual net income or net current asset amounts are insufficient to 
demonstrate its ability to pay, we may also consider the overall magnitude of its business activities. 
See Matter ofSonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612, 614-15 (Reg'l Comm'r 1967). 
In the instant case, the accompanying labor certification states. the proffered wage of the offered position 
of vice president of business development as $156,749 per year. As previously indicated, the petition's 
priority date is February 15, 2013. 
The record before the Director closed on March 19, 2015, with his receipt of the Petitioner's NOID 
response. At that time, financial records for 2013 were the most recent available. The Petitioner 
5 See Viraj, LLC v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 578 Fed. Appx. 907, 910 (11th Cir. 2014) (finding that USCrS was entitled to 
discount letters and evaluations that differed from the information in EDGE, "which is a respected source of 
information"); Tiseo Grp., Inc. v. Napolitano, No. 09-10072, 20 I 0 WL 3464314, *4 (E. D. Mich. Aug. 30, 20 I 0) (finding 
that USCrS properly weighed the education evaluations submitted by the petitioner and EDGE information to conclude 
that the beneficiary lacked the equivalent of a U.S. Master's degree); Sunshine Rehab Servs., Inc. v. USCIS, No. 09-
13605, 2010 WL 3325442, **8-9 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2010) (upholding USCIS's use of EDGE information in 
determining that a beneficiary's three-year Bachelor's degree was not the foreign equivalent degree of a U.S. 
baccalaureate); Confluence Int'l, Inc. v. Holder, No. 08-2665, 2009 WL 825793, *4 (D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2009) (finding 
that we provided a rational explanation for our reliance on EDGE information). 
6 Federal courts have upheld our method of determining a petitioner's ability to pay. See River St. Donuts, LLC v. 
Napolitano, 558 F.3d Ill, 118 (1st Cir. 2009); Tongatapu Woodcraft Haw., Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305, 1309 (9th 
Cir. 1984)); Estrada-Hernandez v. Holder,-- F. Supp. 3d--, 2015 WL 3634497, *5 (S.D. Cal. 2015); Rivzi v. Dep't of 
Homeland Sec., 37 F. Supp. 3d 870, 883-84 (S.D. Tex. 2014); Taco Especial v. Napolitano, 696 F. Supp. 2d 873, 881 
(E.D. Mich. 2010), aff'd, No. 10-1517 (6th Cir. Nov. 10, 2011). 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-G-M-&C- LLC 
submitted a copy of a 2013 federal income tax return, which reflects annual net income exceeding the 
annual proffered wage. However, the return is in the name of a different entity with a different federal 
employer identification number than the Petitioner. 
Counsel asserts that the Petitioner is considered a "dis-regarded entity" for tax purposes. She states that 
all of the Petitioner's income flows to the company identified on the 2013 tax return. 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) treats a limited liability company (LLC) with only one member as 
"an entity disregarded as separate from its owner for income tax purposes." See Internal Revenue Serv., 
at http:/ /www.irs.gov /Businesses/Small- Businesses&Self-Employed/Single-Member-Limited-Liability­
Companies (accessed Oct. 21, 2015). To demonstrate its relationship to the company indicated on the 
tax return, the Petitioner submitted a copy of the first page of its LLC agreement. 
However, the LLC agreement page does not indicate the Petitioner's status as a disregarded entity. The 
agreement page states that the company identified on the tax return is one of two members of the 
Petitioner. The agreement page therefore indicates that the IRS would not treat the Petitioner as a 
disregarded entity because it has more than one member. See Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92 (stating that a 
petitioner must resolve inconsistencies of record by independent, objective evidence). 
The record also contains 2013 audited financial statements of the Beneficiary's parent firm, 
_ which is a publicly traded company on the London Stock Exchange. The statements indicate that 
they include financial information from the parent company's subsidiaries. However, the statements do 
not contain separate audited financial information regarding the Petitioner. The consolidated financial 
statements therefore do not establish the Petitioner 's ability to pay the proffered wage. See Matter of 
Aphrodite Invs., Ltd., 17 I&N Dec. 530, 531 (Comm 'r 1980) (stating that we cannot consider the 
assets of other enterprises in determining a petitioner's ability to pay) ; see also Sitar Rest. v. 
Ashcroft, No. Civ.A. 02-30197-MAP, 2003 WL 22203713, *2 (D. Mass . Sept. 18, 2003) (stating that 
the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 do not permit us to consider the financial resources of entities 
without legal obligation to pay a wage). 
The record does not establish the Petitioner's submission of an annual report , federal income tax return , 
or audited financial statement to support its ability to pay the proffered wage from the petition's priority 
date pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). Because the Petitioner has not submitted regulatory required 
evidence, the record does not establish its ability to pay. Also, for the same reason, we will not consider 
its ability to pay under Sonegawa. 
The record also contains an October 20, 2014, letter from the chief financial officer of the Petitioner's 
parent company. The letter states the parent company's number of employees and gross profits and 
sales for 2013. 
A statement from a financial officer may establish 
a petitioner 's ability to pay if it employs 100 or more 
workers. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). However, the chief fmancial officer's letter states the number of 
employees and gross profits and sales of the Petitioner's parent company, not of the Petitioner. The 
letter therefore does not establish the Petitioner ' s ability to pay. Also, the regulations indicate that a 
Matter of N-G-M-& C- LLC 
letter must be from a financial officer of a petitioner, not of a separate entity. See 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(g)(2) 
(stating that, "[i]n 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") (emphasis added). 
In addition, US CIS records indicate the Petitioner's filing of an I -140 petition for another beneficiary 
that remained pending after the instant petition's priority date.7 A petitioner must establish its 
continuing ability to pay the proffered wage for each petition it files. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2); Matter 
o,[Great Wall, 16 I&N Dec. 142, 144-45 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). Therefore, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate its ability to pay the combined proffered wages of the instant Beneficiary and the other 
beneficiary. The Petitioner must demonstrate its ability to pay the combined wages from the priority 
date of the instant petition until the other beneficiary obtained lawful permanent resident, or until the 
other petition was denied, withdrawn, or revoked. See Patel v. Johnson , 2 F. Supp. 3d 108, 124 (D. 
Mass. 2014) (upholding our denial of a petition where the petitioner did not establish its ability to pay 
multiple beneficiaries). 
The record does not indicate the priority date or proffered wage of the Petitioner's other petition, or 
whether the Petitioner paid wages to the other Beneficiary. The record also does not indicate whether 
the other petition was withdrawn, revoked, or denied, or whether the other beneficiary obtained lawful 
permanent residence. Thus, the record does not demonstrate the Petitioner's ability to pay the combined 
proffered wages of the instant Beneficiary and the beneficiary of its other petition. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the 
proffered wage from the petition's priority date onward. We will therefore affirm this portion of the 
Director's decision and dismiss the appeal on this ground. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The record establishes the Beneficiary's possession of the qualifying education for the offered 
position by the petition's priority date. We will therefore withdraw that portion of the Director's 
decision. However, as the Director found, the record does not establish the Beneficiary's possession 
of the qualifying experience by the petition's priority date or the Petitioner 's continuing ability to 
pay the proffered wage. We will therefore affirm the Director's denial of the petition and dismiss 
the appeal. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the reasons stated above. In visa petition proceedings, a petitioner 
bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner 
has not entirely met that burden. 
7 USC IS records identify the other petition 's receipt number as 
9 
Matter of N-G-M-&C- LLC 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN-G-M-&C- LLC, ID# 14294 (AAO Oct. 26, 2015) 
10