remanded EB-3

remanded EB-3 Case: Investment Management

πŸ“… Date unknown πŸ‘€ Company πŸ“‚ Investment Management

Decision Summary

The appeal was remanded because the required evidence of the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage for 2017, the priority date year, was not yet available at the time of the Director's decision. The AAO withdrew the decision and sent the case back to allow the petitioner the opportunity to submit the necessary financial documents for 2017, which should now be available.

Criteria Discussed

Ability To Pay Proffered Wage

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-C-G- LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 21, 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of investment and fund management services, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as an executive/personal assistant. It requests his classification under the thirdΒ­
preference immigrant category as a professional. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. Β§ 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based, "EB-3" category allows a 
U.S. business to sponsor a foreign national with a bachelor's degree for lawful permanent resident 
status. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate its required ability to pay the proffered wage. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred by 
disregarding its current assets. 
Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a 
new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. To permanently fill a 
position in the United States with a foreign worker, an employer must first obtain certification from 
the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
Β§ 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). DOL approval signifies that insufficient U.S. workers are able, willing, qualified, 
and available for a position, and that employment of a foreign national will not harm wages and 
working conditions of U.S. workers with similar jobs. !d. 
If the DOL approves a position, an employer must next submit the certification in an immigrant visa 
petition to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
Β§ 1154. Among other things, USCIS considers whether a petitioner can pay a proffered wage. If 
USCIS approves a petition, a foreign national may finally apply for an immigrant visa abroad or, if 
eligible, adjustment of status in the United States. See section 245 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Β§ 1255. 
Matter of A-C-G- LLC 
II. ABILITY TO PAY THE PROFFERED WAGE 
A petitiOner must demonstrate its continuing ability to pay a proffered wage, !rom a petition's 
priority date until a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence.' 8 C.F.R. Β§ 204.5(g)(2). 
Evidence of ability to pay must include copies of annual reports, federal income tax returns, or 
audited financial statements. !d. 
Here, the labor certification states the proffered wage of the offered position of executive/personal 
assistant as $70,450 a year. As of the Director's decision and the appeal's filing, however, required 
evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage in 2017, the year of the petition's 
priority date, was not yet available. 2 
The Petitioner should now be able to provide an annual report, federal income tax returns, or audited 
financial statements for 2017. We will therefore remand this matter for further proceedings. 
On remand, the Director should ask the Petitioner to provide required evidence of its ability to pay 
the proffered wage in 2017 and afford it a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Petitioner may 
also submit additional evidence of its ability to pay, including documentation supporting the factors 
stated in Matter of Sonegawa, .12 I&N Dec. 612, 614-15 (Reg'! Comm'r 1967). Upon receipt of a 
timely response, the Director should review the entire record and enter a new decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As of the Director's decision and the appeal's filing, required evidence of the Petitioner's ability to 
pay the proffered wage in the year of the petition's priority date was not yet available. We will 
therefore remand the matter. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of A-C-G- LLC, lD# 1445398 (AAO June 21, 2018) 
1 This petition's priority date is March 8, 2017, the date the DOL accepted the accompanying labor certification 
application for processing. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(d). . 
2 The Petitioner submitted a copy of a 2017 "annual report'" filed with state officials. Unlike an annual report delivered 
to shareholders, however, the state reporl lacks financial information about the Petitioner. The report therefore docs not 
satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. Β§ 204.5(g)(2). 
2 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Draft your EB-3 petition with AAO precedents

MeritDraft uses real AAO decisions to generate compliant petition arguments tailored to your evidence.

Sign Up Free →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.