sustained EB-3

sustained EB-3 Case: Hospitality

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Hospitality

Decision Summary

The Director initially denied the petition, determining that the petitioner had not demonstrated its ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage. Upon de novo review, the AAO found that the petitioner did establish its ability to pay the wage from the priority date onward, leading to the appeal being sustained.

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 SNSH-0-V-, LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 30,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a hospitality management, operations and development business, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as a bookkeeper. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under 
the third preference immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based immigrant classification 
allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent resident status to work in 
a position that requires at least 2 years of training or experience. 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
had not demonstrated its ability to pay the Beneficiary the proffered wage pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(g)(2). The matter is now before us on appeal. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
After reviewing the record in this matter, including materials submitted on appeal, we. find that the 
·Petitioner has demonstrated its ability to pay the . proffered wage from the priority date onward. 
Accordingly, the Director's denial of the petition will be withdrawn, and the petition will be 
approved under section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) ofthe Act. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of establishing eligibility for the benefit sought remains with 
the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 
2013). Here, that burden has been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofSNSH-0-V-, LLC, ID# 10465 (AAO Dec. 30, 2016) 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Use this winning precedent in your petition

MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.

Build Your Winning Petition →

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