remanded EB-3 Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-S-S-G- INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 6, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of software development and consulting services , seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as a programmer analyst. It requests his classification under the third-preference 
immigrant category as a skilled worker. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment -based, "EB-3" category allows a 
U.S. business to sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent resident status to work in a job 
requiring at least two years of training or experience. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition's approval. The Director concluded 
that, contrary to the Act and Department of Homeland Security regulations , the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate its intention to employ the Beneficiary in the offered position or its ability to pay the 
job's proffered wage. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director disregarded the evidence m the company's 
response to his written notice of intent to deny (NOID) the petition. 
A petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for a requested benefit by a preponderance of evidence. 
See, e.g., Matter of Rehman, 27 I&N Dec . 124, 125 (BIA 2017) (citation omitted) . When 
adjudicating under that standard, U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) "must 
examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (emphasis added). An 
adverse decision must "explain in writing the specific reasons for denial." 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). 
Here, contrary to Chawathe, the decision does not demonstrate the Director's examination of the 
evidence in the Petitioner 's NOID response. The decision refers to one of the Petitioner 's responses 
to a prior written request for additional evidence. But the decision does not mention the more 
recently issued NOID or the company's reply to it. The decision concludes that the Petitioner 
omitted requested evidence of its ability to pay the position's proffered wage from 2016 onward. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) (generally requiring evidence of ability to pay to include copies of annual 
reports, federal tax returns , or audited financial statements) . The record, however , shows that the 
Petitioner's NOID response included copies of the company's federal income tax returns for 2016 
and 2017, and evidence of its wage payments to the Beneficiary in 2016, 2017, and 2018 . The 
Matter of R-S-S-G- Inc. 
decision neither explains why the Petitioner's documentation is insufficient, nor even mentions the 
materials. Similarly, the decision states that "the petitioner failed to provide any evidence" 
supporting its claim that it advertised the possibility that the offered job would require relocation to 
unanticipated U.S. worksites. The record, however, shows that the Petitioner's NOID response 
included copies of newspaper ads for the position stating that "[t]ravel and relocation may be 
required throughout [the] USA." The NOID response also contained a copy of an application for a 
prevailing wage determination, stating that applicants for the position "[ m Just be willing to 
travel/relocate to various client locations throughout [the] USA on company paid expenses." 
Because the Director did not discuss relevant materials in the Petitioner's NOID response, we will 
withdraw his decision and remand the matter. On remand, the Director must examine and consider 
the evidence in the NOID response. If the response was untimely or its evidence does not establish 
the Petitioner's intention to employ the Beneficiary in the offered position or its ability to pay the 
proffered wage, the Director must enter a new decision explaining the deficiencies. 
Also, the Director asked the Petitioner to demonstrate its ability to pay the combined proffered 
wages of this and other immigrant petitions that it filed in 2015 and 2016. See Patel v. Johnson, 
2 F.Supp.3d 108, 124 (D. Mass. 2014) (requiring a petitioner to demonstrate its ability to pay the 
combined proffered wages of multiple petitions). USCIS records, however, indicate that the 
Petitioner since filed three additional immigrant petitions in 2017 and 2018. 1 Thus, on remand the 
Director should ask the Petitioner to provide the proffered wages and priority dates of the additional 
petitions. The Petitioner may also submit additional evidence of its ability to pay the combined 
proffered wages, including proof of its wage payments to relevant beneficiaries in 2015, 2016, 2017, 
and 2018, and materials supporting the factors stated in Matter of Sonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612, 614-
15 (Reg'l Comm'r 1967). 
The Director should afford the Petitioner a reasonable period to provide the requested information 
and any other relevant evidence. Upon receipt of a timely response, the Director should review the 
entire record and enter a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of R-S-S-G- Inc., ID# 5985787 (AAO Sept. 6, 2019) 
I lJSCTS recordr identity the three additional petitions by the following receipt numbers: 
I ]and I 
2