PetitionLens
All decisions
SustainedEB-2 · Appeal

Project coordinator

Other / unclear · decided 2016-04-25 · NSC · APR252016_01B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

Decided under the old NYSDOT test, replaced by Matter of Dhanasar on Dec 27, 2016. Useful for background only.

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

What the AAO decided

Read the full decision (1 page)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (1)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · MATTER OF M-USA LLC · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · DATE: APR. 25,2016 · APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION · PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER

    The Petitioner. a provider of additive manufacturing software and '"3-D" printing services, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a project coordinator. It seeks classification of the Beneficiary as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree under the second preference immigrant classification. S'ee Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2)(A). 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A). This classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a professional with an advanced degree for lawful permanent resident status.

    The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition on May 6, 2015. The Director concluded that the record did not establish the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner asserts that the Director did not fully consider all the evidence of its ability to pay the proffered wage.

    Upon consideration of the entire record, including evidence submitted in response to our request for evidence of December 29. 2015. the record establishes the Petitioner's ability to pay the protlercd wage from the petition's priority date onward. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) (requiring a petitioner to demonstrate its ability to pay from a petition's priority date until a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence). We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and sustain the appeal. The record also establishes the Petitioner's and the Beneficiary's eligibility for the requested immigrant classification. We will therefore approve the petition.

    ORDER: The appeal is sustained.

    Cite as lvfatter (~f M-USA. LLC, ID# 15609 (AAO Apr. 25, 20 16)