sustained EB-3 Case: Auditing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-S-G-, INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 11.2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner. a parking, transportation, and property services company, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as an internal auditor. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a professional under 
the third preference immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act section 
203(b)(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(B)(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based immigrant classification 
allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a professional with a baccalaureate degree for lawful permanent 
resident status. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition on the ground that the Petitioner did not 
establish its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage to the Beneficiary from the priority date 
onward. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the evidence of record, augmented on appeal. establishes its 
continuing ability to pay the protlered wage from the priority date up to the present. 
Upon de novo review we will sustain the appeal. 
A petitioner must establish that it has the ability to pay the beneficiary the protfered wage. as stated 
on the labor certification, from the priority date onward. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). In this case the 
priority date of the labor certification is September 2, 2014, 1 and the labor certification states that the 
proffered wage for the internal auditor position is $68,91 0 per year. 
In determining a petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) first examines whether the beneficiary was employed and paid by the petitioner 
during the period following the priority date. If the petitioner establishes by documentary evidence 
that it employed the beneficiary at a salary equal to or greater than the protlered wage, the evidence 
is considered proof of the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. If the petitioner does not 
establish that it has paid the beneficiary an amount at least equal to the proffered wage from the 
priority date onward. USCIS will examine the net income and net current assets figures entered on 
1 
The "priority date•· of the petition is the date the underlying labor certification was tiled with the Department of Labor. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
Matter of A-S-G-. Inc. 
the petitioner's federal income tax return(s), annual reports, or audited financial statements. If either 
of these figures equals or exceeds the proffered wage or the difference between the proffered wage 
and the amount paid to the beneficiary in a given year, the petitioner would be considered able to 
pay the proffered wage during that year. 
In his decision, the Director found that the Petitioner did not have the ability to pay in 2015 and 
2016.2 On appeal, the Petitioner provides evidence that it paid the Beneficiary more than the 
proffered wage in 2016, establishing its ability to pay in that year. For 2015, the Petitioner paid the 
Beneficiary $1.911.66less than the proffered wage. According to the Petitioner's federal income tax 
return, Form 1120S, in 2015 the Petitioner had a net loss and net current liabilities. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established its ability to pay the full proffered wage in 2015 based on the amount it 
paid the Beneficiary plus either net income or net current assets that year. 
USCIS may also consider the totality of the Petitioner's circumstances, including the overall 
magnitude of its business activities, in determining the Petitioner" s ability to pay the proffered wage. 
See Matter o{ Sonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612. At its discretion, USCIS may consider evidence 
relevant to the petitioner's financial ability that falls outside of its net income and net current assets. 
USCIS may consider such factors as the number of years the petitioner has been doing business, the 
historical growth of the petitioner's business, the petitioner's reputation within its industry, the 
overall number of employees, whether the beneficiary is replacing a former employee or an 
outsourced service, the amount of compensation paid to otlicers, the occurrence of any 
uncharacteristic business expenditures or losses, and any other evidence that USCIS deems relevant 
to the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. 
As indicated on the Petitioner's federal income tax returns, the Petitioner was incorporated in 1998, 
had gross receipts of approximately $41 million in 2014 and $41.5 million in 2015, and had 455 
employees at the time the petition was filed in 2017. On its tax returns the Petitioner stated that 
compensation to its officers totaled $1,958,793 in 2014 and $1.879,172 in 2015. The record includes 
a letter dated June 1, 2017, from the Petitioner's president and co-owner stating that his officer 
compensation in 2015 totaled over $1 million and that he was willing and able to utilize part of that 
compensation to pay any portion of the proffered wage not covered by the Beneficiary's annual 
salary. That shortfall, as previously discussed, was $1,911.66 in 2015. The record also includes a 
letter from the Petitioner's chief financial otlicer, likewise dated June 1, 2017, stating that the 
Petitioner employs more than I 00 workers, and has the financial ability to pay the full proffered 
wage of$68,910 to the Beneficiary. 
Considering the totality of its circumstances, we find that the Petitioner has established its 
continuing ability to pay the protlered wage from the priority date of September 2, 2014, up to the 
present. 
2 The Petitioner submitted required evidence under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(g)(2) for 2014.2015, and 2016. 
2 
Matter of A-S-G-, Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of A -S-G-, Inc., ID# 930679 (AAO Jan. 11, 20 18)