sustained EB-3 Case: Records And Information Management

i&%ti%ing dats de8eted to 
p~vgrl t c fr;xi l y 3-i nwaz~aated 
&vwiun of persona! ~T~V~CY 
B1.S. E?'irep.nstmezst of Humriand Ser,uriP;v 
:I: hl:lss Ave.: 3. W., Krn. ?GO3 
Wash~nE.;:~i. BC 211520 
U. S. Ci t izeaslxip 
and limn~igratiomn 
Services - 
IN WE: Petitinnc: 
Bc~eiiciary: - 
. . 
PE'~~~~~; 
 ynlmigran~ Per:trc>r. fi:):. Alien $$;nrl<c~ 
 a Skiilcd '#ot.ker or f-'r~fessiosd l'ursuant to Section 
,- . 
ibis i:; ihct dei.;si<>~:. c!'ri:e t\(rlmir-listrati; Appeals CIffice i:, yi?ui. case. AlJ doc:m;ents have been r~ttin~ed to 
the o-ffjce that m:r;irysljy drci&xj your cast.. Any .fi-~~iber !nq-;:iry ri~.mst be made 20 ?'tiat ofice. 
DltSd'XfSSIB'$W: 'l'lre preference visa petirjor~ was denied by tl:? Acting Cenier Director (dir-ector.), Ver-tnont 
Sc;vicc 63ci:ter. and is now before the Adi:?.inisirativcr Appeais Oftice jA.AO! on appeal. The cippeal uiiil bt- 
sus~ained. 
-3 
I be petrtioner is a -records ani.1 infoniiat~c?rr !ndnagernml con-tpany. 
 It seeks to ert:.ploy the t?eneficiary 
permanently in the {'hized States as a recixds a116 jaf'onatian rfinnagcment systems director. A.s req~z~red by 
sinlute. Form ETA '750. Applicafion fbr Allen Ewployrnent Certification approved by the Skpartmenl of I..al?or 
(Dffl.), accon:pa;.iled the petition. The d!rector fo~nsd hat the petitiol~er had not estab!isl~ed that if had he 
con:inu!rzg fiilar~ciai abjiity trir pay he benctjciar:,  he proi'fere4 wage beginning on the prirtriry date of the visa 
petition 2nd denied the ;>ctiticx~ 3c~or?i:~gIy. 
(311 appeal, co~mscl submits additional c,vidence and conter:rfs that the petitioner has di~monstratsd iis contiauing 
finarlclal alrrllity to pay the proiTirerJ v,:aye. 
Secticxti Zij.?(b)i.j)(A)j~) of tl-te Xmmjg!-:itior: and Natioriaiity Act (fi-te Acs), 8 U.S.C. 9 11 53(b)(3)(A){i), prcwides 
{or the pdntlng crf'prefcrzrrcc classific.at;otr to q:ialifieci l$ms~~r;ints who 3:e capabie, at the time of peijtj.orrjng ;j.r 
. . 
classification uitidei- this p;iragapk, of perfc!r;ning skilled laltor (rcquir-ing nt leas: two years tra:ril~lg or 
experic::cei, not ~rf 3 iemporary rlature, for which qualified x~or!cers are ni>t avniiabie in the T.lni[ed States. 
q-hc ,..c .-. , egul;ition . a? 8 C.F.R. $ SiM.S(g')(2$ stz,tt:s: in pertiqent pax:,: 
,4hit'ity qi"ji"(lr-oLspecr'i-vi.: errcu!c::.rer !'c ~?LL,I> :+ilgC. Ally petjfion fikd by or for al; en-tp!c>yn7eni- 
lrrascd immigrant wlxch requires 8,r: ctfkt- of eiaplo::ment musf be accol-i-tpanicd by evidence 
3 
thzt the prospective hinitrd States ewplo)ies {?as the abiiicy to paif ike proffered wage. 'fllc 
petitioner nirrst demot-tsiratc d:is abijiry at the time ihe priority date is establ-isheif a.nd 
conlinl.ang ~17tii the beneficiary obtains lawf~rf perrrlaneni residence. Evidence of this ability 
shall be in the fmn of copies of ai:nuai rc.p(srtst frder-a! (ax. returns. (21- audited financia[ 
staternenls. 
'1%~ petiiioner mus; den-tonsti.aie the contmu-ing abiiiiry !a pay the proffered wage hegini~ing on the ptios-ity dale. 
'The fiJz11g dxe or ljrjorr~y dda~e of the pe:,iticr~-r is BI~ injtial receipt in the P)C)L7s ernpiojin~el~t s~rvicr system. See 
I; C.F.R. S 204.5(d). 5.Iere, Frsrnl E'Th 750 w;ss acceptcd Tor prvcctssirlg csn April 3G, 2001. 'T'he proi'itred wage as 
stated on Fun1 ETA 750 is $ 10'1,OC)O per year. On Foml ETA 790B, signed by the beneficiary on April 27, 200 I, 
~lzc I?eneficiary claims 10 have worked for Ilrc petitioner frzxn July 1989 tc~ Januzry 1990. 
On Par? 5 of the I~nxiipant Petitlor1 for Alien Worker (Forrrl 8-1401, filed oil May 19, 2003. the c~i-ponte 
. . 
petrc:oner clairr:s th3P it 
 esta&Iis!:.?d on October 1, 1989, I-ras t;sn:enty ct-rrrenl en:#o-)iees, has 2 ,qross zrmua] 
incoine of 1.3 million dolja~x, and a net annual irlcelne of $850,000. 
1:: support of its alxliq~ to pay d~e prc:rl'fered s~ilary, the petir;i?r:el- initial;): submitted a copy of its Fill-tn 2 9 "OS, 
1J.S. Fricame Tax Return for an S i:'cxi>or.dzion for 2001. It indicates that the jjetitioner tiles iis iaxcs using a 
slu~ddrd cajelicfar year. 'f"ne 2001 tzx reIilr7: shows lhaf Ihc petit;orrer repor-ted c~rdinal-y incoioe of' $8,757.' 
" For the purpose irlrhls review, ordinzry ij-rcorne wiil ije treated as net income. 
Scheduie E, or" ihe tax ~tu171 r?veais that the peti:icner had $86.564 in current assets and $230,321 in cunent 
liabilities. resultirrg in -$1.4:3,757 in !let cznent a~scts. Net euxent assefs are ihe dif'5iremce between clle 
pct!tic?nei-'s curren! assets azd csrrent Iizkilities and repiesen: a mc::surt: of !iy~.!idity and a possible readily 
a~ailnble resc)o.rce to pay 2 cej-tified %(age. Besides net inccdnlt., (7iii~r1s!:lp arid Imn~igratiot~ Services (CIS) wiii 
re\;jew 3 co~-pomfe petiiio:~ex's net crirreni assets as z nleasirx of Iiqrridrty during a givei: period and as an 
alterl~atjvc nieihod oi' examining its ability to pay a proffered 1,i.-age. .A copora~ion's year-end crrrrenf assets are 
sfrown on lineis) lid) i-hro;lgh 6jd) of ?cl?et3~lia I. 3rd cur~ent liabiil~ics are sholwtl on li;ie(s) i6(d) t?~ro~rgh 1X(d). 
If a co~yor~tion's yew-end net currerit assets are equal to or. greater than the prolfered wage, tile peiitioner is 
e.xpec_-tird to be nb!c to pay tile profl-i-red wage oil: of those rlei cumlit assets. 
On Decenrber 10, 2003, the dir2ctor rzqrrested additional e.vidence ;I? the 511i-m ul" fcdcrai tdx renirns, ;inl~ual 
reporis: or a:~dited finar?ci;il sta?emer:ts from the pc,-titic>ner p:rtineni- to its contiriuing ability to r)3y the prolfered 
w::gu?l begirlning at 111r priority &ale of ApriI 30, 2001. The &rector alsa specifically reqiiestcd that the 
petitioner provide a copy of its 2002 federal income trix rehim ~vilh all scht3duiei; and al;hchments, copies c~i'tlle 
bcneiici;i~y's 'CVagc and 'Tax Siatzn~eni (.\'t'-_?) if iht. ;xt~iiujier c;nplcryed him, a szitement frmn a financial officcc-. 
or ann:ial rcpoas %ijr 2001 and 2002 alorlg wit!: auii:tecS or reviriveci lirranciai stateme1:ts. 
Thc pet!t;c?iler, thriiug1.1 co:jnsei, prov~ded a copy of the petitinner's co~purtlfe tax return. for 2l:jQiZ. 1: reilects that 
the pctitioncr rr:~ori~:d $3'7,107 iil ordinary income. Sclreduje I, indicates tkt t;ie petitio~er had $S23,2.!4 in 
cul-rent asseis and S?45.,532 in CIIR~T:~ !i;ibiiiti~. y?ejding -$122,208 in net ctx~~eilt assets. 
Coansci oiso sopplied a iettcr. dated March 3. 1004. ~rcin- thc pciitionrr's vice-president. 
 = 
states thiit the heneficiaiy "wiii pc~l"brn: duties previously zssigned to a replaced mariagernent staff person" ancJ 
. ' , , ' . 
a letter. dated March 3, 2ij04. from ihc pe:it!~?i~~r's ai:cc~untant. 
 states that 
$82,400 112 bon~rscr.s war; paid to sharc;iolder(s) in 2001 and ii: 2002 Irz oraer to mrnlrrnac the corporate petitioner's 
:ax ',ia!,iiiry by reducing prtjfi~s. He states thzt ti- .,,t;e ,b funds cixld have been available to pay the proposed wage 
t>ffer. 
The iii~ectoi. der~ied the petltioil on &,fay 6, 2004, noiiilg that the petiti~r,erls ievc.1 of net inzorne and net eorrerlt 
assets Giiird co the demonstmte the peiiticrna.'s ability to pay thc proposed iljsge offex in either 20(f\i or 2002. The 
. . 
a~rector tleciined to ci:in::iilicr the sf-iarcho!der hor:uses paid in 2001 or 2003 and mted that the assertion G~af he 
beneficiary intended repiacemerit oi" anocRer staff managemenl ri.nployee was not s;lppn;-ted by the evidence 
showing f-hat the stafl'persoix no Ionger works fix the petitioner or the amount ofsvapes paid. 
s;.~brrl-its two additional letters t?orx; 
 0th ai-e dared Octobel- 18, 
,repeais the assem?-ioris ~n tiis ezirlier 
 do not. ac.curately reflect 
ihr pe~itioner could have used to pay the pro:'fered wage, B-le adds tfrat the 1seneficial-y "\vouId 
L. ,~,,.ve ., replaced (m existing n:anagenlcilt employee'' so hat this err~ployee's salary would riot h;i\~c been inc:lxed by 
the peiitioner. Hi. ais he a$sert!ot, that the sl~iireholder bonuses" could have beell paid Lo the 
ber?etjcia~-y as wages. icy describes the bei-reficja~y's backgoimd 2nd the petitioner's desire to 
employ him. HZ: states i:si'nilit:es wt?uld "i-ncIude iricorporating the duties perfi>r!ned 12y a f'oni~cr 
- . . . -. . . . -. - . -. . . . -. . - 
 . . -. 
' Shcrw;i on the ?a:x returr: as officers' compensatjon 
ernpic>yeei' who serve<] as a dire,- bt project supeivisi?r. 
MF 
also states that the shn:ehr:jldex bonuses ~ouid 
I?;tve been aSIe to also support the payment of ihe poftere wage. In support ~f the ar?io~il~t of tvagcs paid to the 
forn:er cm-pioyer., copies of' thee W-2s trtive been si~bmitted. 'The avages paid by the pe~itioner, however: are 
sl-cowr! to be 54 1.744.33 ir: 200i ; S54,3!:;4.80 in 2002, and $5'0,305.83 in 2003, 
1-0 detelsnining a petitir~ner's ability to pa): a ceriificit wage, CIS will Grst er<aminc ivhetl~es a pet-it~crncr may ha-ve 
errspio:yed aisd paid wlages to a beneficizct-ry dilring a given period. If a petitioner estab!i:shes by credible 
documer,tat-y evidence that it empIoyed  he henefi'iciai-y at a salary erqrral tr? 01- greater tl?.an d~e proffered wage, the 
evidence will be cunsidered pri~ila.jhcic: proof of the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wzge. If eitl~er. the 
peiiticx~ei.'s net taxabie incomr or net currerrt assets can caveu any shoi-tt:aii resultir-tg fronr a con~parison o.factrral 
wages pliid to hr proffered :wag: then ltre petitjoner's alsiljty to pa: the cc-rtitied wage may also be demonsirafed 
icor 3 given period. 111 the inst3.n~ case: the record cfoes not indicate tlia: the petitioner has en~pfoycd tt:e 
bew fizi;!ry ZRer the priority date. 
if the evidence fails to shi>~\r tliat the petitioner has alres~dy established its ability to pay the proffered wage 
through cor:?.pensatioxl paid to tl:e bcneij'iciary. CIS 5vil'; tiidlh examint' thir net incorne figure reflected on riit: 
petitioner's federal ieconne tax retu.rnis), wiihi?ut coii:;ideratim of dep~t:ciatia~? (21- odler er~pensi-s. Additionally. it 
wil! review n pet!r~:~r;er's cun-ent assets aiid clipen: liabil!iies as refiectcd clrr Scfrectule f. of the talc setur;i as an 
a!tem:lti\;c rnethcsd of detcrn~ining a petitioner's abi!i~y tee? paj~ the proffered wage. Reliance or? feder.al irrcon?e tax 
. . 
retinris as a basis hr determining ;i pe~rtloner's abii~ty lo pay :11e proffired wage is ivcli estahiished by judicial 
p~ecederit. Eiiltl.i.~ ~es1~111Ytbl7t (:l~ii(>. \< .S:\~LI; 6.32 F'. Sum IOiE9, 10% (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (citing E1tigc~t~t;7;< 
M'o~trJ~lqfi Fl(nieii. Ltd. i: ,F~.ll;!~2iui, 33 6 F.24 l.305 (921-i Cir . 1 984 1); set: also CT!;ci-fi:?:g C'h~t?g 1,:. 7'iii)rnh~lr,r$1, 
-. 
: ~9 F. :S:;pp. 232 (N.I:>. l'exns 1989); K.C.?. Fii~ii' Co., fm:. :.: SCI\,'CL, 1330 F. Supp. 1080 {S.D.N.Y. 1985); ~,7/~ct2i;. 
v. Y(xitner, j?'0 2;~ Sup;>. 647 (N.1'). 12, 1982), /;#"if. 703 F.Zd 571 ('7th Cis. 19x3). In .KCT. P. ,L'ood i.b., inc. v. 
Savr?, 623 1'. Sr:pp, at- 1084, the court held that Irnrnigrilticrr~ nnit Natun~lizatioi: Service, i?c~w (:'IS, had prope~ly 
relied, on ttre petitiorrcr's rlet irlcnrne figure, as stated on the peiilioner's ccrrporate income tax returns, r;tther :hiin 
the petitioner's s:ross income. 'I;be eorrri speci5cal!y re-jecied the argulrient !hat lIle Se~vice sjirsuld have 
considered income before expenses were paid, lai;llcr than net inconye. 
If an cx~nrinalic:,19aii of the get~iioner's net i1:con-te is ~(agcs paid to ibc be~zc{-- ,~cj.arry hils to succe.c;sfi,d:llly drr?ionscmf,te 
an aixlily to pay the proposed wiige offkr, as statec'; above, CIS will rcview a ~setifioner-'s ixei current li:;sets. 
In :his case, although the evidence i~:dicztrs &at the petitiorier's net incon-re coinld nrrf support :he prot'f::ed wage 
of $lii9,0i)O, in some cases, where the ex. d-.7 t:,ce indicates that a :easonab!e portinr, of shareholcier bonttscr.s may 
be corisiderzil ;is addiiirjnai 5trancisI resource, it is q3propriare tn review such figures in addition to the :lei 
income of the business. Here, the salary oi'ihe fom-rer anployes nay also be considered i11 conjunct.i:ion with the 
when the amclunts of income in th~sc rcsixctive years, the results indicate ih3t the pet~ii~~l-ie~ co~~ld COV~L- the 
certified wage of Bl(b9,OOO in both 2091 and 2002. 
b-1 examining a petitioner':; a:wiity tto pay the profkred wage, the fillidarnenlaj. focus or" tile CIS' determination is 
cvhetller the enlployer is making a realistic job offer and has the oiier;il! financia! ability to satisfy the proffered 
wage. ,lfcrltre: q/;Il'Gi,c'.af JV'rl!, ib I&N DPC. I47, 135 (Acting Reg. C:ctmrr~, 1977). Accordingly, after a review of 
the petitioner':; l-deral tax returns and 3lj othil'r relevant. evidence, we eclncIude blat the petitioner has established 
tha'i ii had .the ability io pay fhc salary oTf~red as of i.he priority date ni'the petiti~~t-r and continuing to present. 
'The burden oFy?roc?! in tbse proceedings rests soieiy tvjth the pe~ilinrre~. Section 291 of fbe Act, 8 I.1.S.G. tj 1361. 
'fie wc.titior;ei has n-[el that burderr. 
CJRi.1 ER: 
 TI-re appeal is susfained. The piif ion will hc appro%&.