PetitionLens
All decisions
SustainedEB-2 · Appeal

Occupation not stated

Other / unclear · decided 2013-02-06 · NSC · FEB062013_03B5203

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

  • The appeal is sustained, and the petition is approved. See in text
  • Accordingly, the petition is approved under section 203(b)(2) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). See in text
  • ORDER: The appeal is sustained, and ihe petition is approved. See in text

Main reasons given

  • Upon review .of the entire record, including evidence submitted on appeal and in response to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) issued by the AAO, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has established that it had the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary the proffe~ wage beginning on the priority date. ofthe visa petition. See in text
Read the full decision (3 pages)

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 (3) AAO finding (1)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    Date: FEB 0 6 2013 · INRE: Petitioner: · Beneficiary: . .u;s. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 20 Massachusetts Ave., N. W ., MS 2090 ' Washington, DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER~ FILE: · PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced

    Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to ~ection 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C § 1153(b)(2) .

    ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

    INSTRUCTIONS:

    Enclosed please ·fmd the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. ftf\'

    \J.~~g

    Actiitg Chief, Administrative Appeals Office · www.uscis.gov

    DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal is sustained, and the petition is approved.

    The petitioner is an operations and sourcing consulting company.1 It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a senior manager of strategic consulting pursuant to section · 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). As required by statute, a labor certification accompanied the petition. The director determined thai the petitioner had not established that it had the continuing ability to ·pay the beneficiary the proffered wage beginning on the priority date of the visa petition. The director denied the petition accordingly. The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). .

    In pertinent part, section 203(b)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), provides immigrant classification to members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent and whose services are sought by an employer in the United States. An advanced degree is a United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above the baccalaureate level. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The regulation further states: "A United States .baccalaureate degl-ee or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the . specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree." /d. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) states in pertinent part:

    Ability of prospective employer to pay wage. Any petition filed by or for an employment-based immigrant which requires an offer of employment · must be accompanied by evidence that the prospective Umted States employer has the ability to pay the proffered wage .. The petitioner must demonstrate this ability at the time the priority date is ·established and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. Evidence of this ability shall be either in the form of copies of annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements.

    The petitioner must demonstrate the continuing ability to pay . the proffered wage beginning on the priority date, which is the date the ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, was accepted for processing by any office within the employment system of the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). The petitioner must also demonstrate that, on the priority date, the beneficiary had the qualifications stated on its ETA Form 9089 as certified by the DOL and submitted with the instant petition. Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16l&N Dec. 158 (Act. Reg. Comm. 1977).

    Upon review .of the entire record, including evidence submitted on appeal and in response to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) issued by the AAO, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has established that it had the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary the proffe~ wage beginning on the priority date. ofthe visa petition. Accordingly, the petition is approved under section 203(b)(2) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2).

    The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has met that burden.

    ORDER: The appeal is sustained, and ihe petition is approved.