The Petitioner, an information technology consulting company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a software developer. The company requests her classification under the employment-based, secondpreference (EB-2) immigrant visa category as a member of the professions holding an "advanced degree." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2)(A). Businesses may sponsor aliens for U.S. permanent residence in this category to work in jobs requiring at least master's degrees or their equivalents. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining the term "advanced degree").
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the petition. The Acting Associate Director of Service Center Operations concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate its required ability to pay the offered job's proffered wage. On appeal, the company contends that the Director misanalysed its ability to pay and improperly disregarded its accountant's testimony and a totality of the circumstances.
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010).
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015), we conclude that the Director's errors were harmless and that a totality of the circumstances does not establish the company's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage. We will therefore dismiss the appeal.
Law
Immigration as an advanced degree professional generally follows a three-step process. First, a prospective employer must obtain certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) that: (1) insufficient U.S. workers are able, willing, qualified, and available for an offered job; and (2) an alien's employment in the job would not harm wages and working conditions of U.S. workers with similar jobs. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i).
Second, an employer must submit a DOL-approved labor certification with an immigrant visa petition to USCIS. See section 204(a)(l)(F) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(l)(F). USCIS determines, among p. 2 other things, whether an alien beneficiary meets the requirements of a DOL-certified position and a requested immigrant visa category. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(D).
Finally, if USCIS approves a petition, a beneficiary may apply for an immigrant visa abroad or, if eligible, "adjustment of status" in the United States. See section 245(a)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(l).
Analysis
A petitioner must demonstrate its continuing ability to pay an offered job's proffered wage, from a petition's priority date until a beneficiary obtains U.S. permanent residence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). Evidence of ability to pay must generally include copies of a petitioner's annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements. Id.; see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual E.4(A), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual ("[T]he petition must include copies of the petitioner's annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements for each available year from the priority date.") 1 When determining ability to pay, USCIS examines whether a petitioner paid a beneficiary the full proffered wage each year, starting with the year of a petition's priority date. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual E.4(C)( 1 ). If a petitioner did not annually pay the full proffered wage or did not pay a beneficiary at all, the Agency considers whether the business generated annual amounts of net income or net current assets sufficient to pay any differences between the proffered wage and the wages paid. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual E.4(C)(2). If net income and net current assets are insufficient, USCIS may consider other factors potentially affecting a petitioner's ability to pay a proffered wage. See Matter of Sonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612, 614-15 (Reg'l Comm'r 1967); see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual E.4(C)(3).2
The Petitioner's labor certification states the proffered wage of the offered software developer job as $120,328 a year. The petition's priority date is May 31, 2024, the date DOL accepted the labor certification application for processing. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( d) ( explaining how to determine a petition's priority date).
The record indicates that the Petitioner began employing the Beneficiary in the offered job in December 2024. A copy ofthe Beneficiary's 2024 IRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, indicates that the company paid her $6,500 that year. That amount does not equal or exceed the annual proffered wage of $120,328. Thus, based solely on wages paid, the company has not demonstrated its ability to pay the proffered wage in 2024.
Nevertheless, we credit the Petitioner's wage payments to the Beneficiary. In 2024, the company need only demonstrate its ability to pay the difference between the annual proffered wage ($120,328) and the wage paid ($6,500), or $113,828.
A copy of the Beneficiary's 2025 Form W-2 indicates that the Petitioner paid her $120,324 that year. That amount does not equal or exceed the annual proffered wage of $120,328. But, as discussed above, we credit the company's wage payments to the Beneficiary. Thus, it need only demonstrate its ability to pay the difference between the annual proffered wage and the wages paid, or $4. The Petitioner submitted copies of its 2024 and 2025 federal income tax returns. The company's 2025 federal income tax return reflects net income of $260,810 and net current assets of $186,466. Both amounts exceed the $4 difference between the annual proffered wage and wages paid. Therefore, as the Director found, the company demonstrated its ability to pay the proffered wage in 2025. The 2024 tax return, however, reflects net income of $32,524 and net current assets of -$23,770. Neither amount equals or exceeds the $113,828 difference between the annual proffered wage and the wages paid in 2024. Thus, based on examinations of wages paid, net income, and net current assets, the company has not demonstrated its ability to pay the proffered wage in 2024.
As the Petitioner argues on appeal, the Director neglected to consider additional factors potentially affecting the company's ability to pay the proffered wage. See Matter ofSonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. at 614-15; see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual E.4(C)(3). For example, USCIS may consider: the number of years the company has conducted business; historical growth of its business; occurrences of uncharacteristic business expenditures or losses from which it has since recovered; and its reputation in its industry. Id.
The Director's oversight, however, is harmless, as a totality of the circumstances does not establish the company's ability to pay the proffered wage in 2024. See Beltran-Resendez v. INS, 207 F.3d 284, 287 (5th Cir. 2000) (finding that the Board of Immigration Appeals committed harmless error in determining that a claim of U.S citizenship on an employment form constituted false testimony); see generally Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing cases regarding harmless or scrivener's errors).
The Petitioner argues that the Director erred by limiting her ability-to-pay analysis to the amounts of the company's net income and net current assets. The company contends that its gross receipts, payroll costs, and growth trajectory demonstrated its ability to pay in 2024.
The Petitioner's 2024 federal income tax return reports $1,939,667 in gross receipts. The Petitioner argues: "The company generated revenue exceeding $160,000 per month. The scale of the Petitioner's revenue dwarfs the proffered annual wage of $120,328, reflecting a business with substantial cash flow and the operational capacity to absorb a single additional salary obligation." The Petitioner's 2024 federal income tax return also reflects the company's payment of $1,266,873 in salaries and wages and $64,546 in payroll taxes. The company states: 'The Beneficiary's salary of $120,328 represents less than 10% of the existing payroll. Nothing in the record suggests an inability p. 4 to absorb this obligation." The Petitioner also notes that, within about two-and-a-half years of its incorporation in May 2022, its annual revenues grew to nearly $2 million.
The record supports the financial statistics that the Petitioner cites. But, after listing insufficient profit and net current asset amounts in 2024, the company has not adequately explained how it could have paid the proffered wage that year. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual E.4(C)(3) ("Any additional evidence submitted must establish, when considered with the required initial evidence, the petitioner's ability to pay.")
In Sonegawa, the petitioner could not demonstrate its ability to pay for the year ofthe petition's priority date. See Matter ofSonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. at 614. The Regional Commissioner, however, approved the petition because the business demonstrated that its relocation that year caused it to pay uncharacteristic expenses and forced a pause in its business operations. Id. In contrast, the Petitioner has not explained its inability to demonstrate its ability to pay in 2024. The record therefore does not indicate a likelihood that the company can continuously pay the proffered wage.
The Petitioner contends that its accounts receivable amount in 2024 demonstrated its ability to pay the proffered wage that year. The company's 2024 federal income tax return indicates that the company ended the year with $176,963 in accounts receivable, i.e. money owed from customers that the company expected to collect. The company contends:
Notably, the other current liabilities driving the negative net current assets calculation include $196,846 in payroll liabilities that were already deducted as expenses from net income. . . . The denial thus effectively double-counted the Petitioner's wage obligations - once reducing net income and again inflating current liabilities.
The record, however, does not support the Director's purported "double-counting" of the Petitioner's payroll obligations or the claimed deduction of $196,846 in payroll liabilities from the company's income in 2024. The company cites Line 18 of Schedule Land "Statement #23" ofits 2024 tax return. Line 18 of Schedule L indicates that the company ended 2024 with $205,170 in "other current liabilities." But the 2024 tax return does not include a Statement #23. Statement #11 indicates that the Petitioner's other current liabilities on Line 18 of Schedule L included $196,846 in payroll liabilities. But the record does not indicate the deduction of that amount from the company's income. Rather, Line 26, "other deductions," and Statement #5 of the company's 2024 federal income tax return indicate the deduction of $3,648 in "payroll processing expenses" from the company's income. The Petitioner has not explained how $3,648 in payroll processing expenses equates to $196,846 in payroll liabilities, or otherwise supported its claim that the Director "double-counted" the company's wage obligations.
Otherwise, the record shows that the Director properly considered the Petitioner's accounts receivable in her net current assets analysis. As indicated on Lines 1-6 in Statement L, Balance Sheets per Books, of the company's 2024 federal income tax return, the Director totaled the company's year-end current assets - including $176,963 in accounts receivable - and subtracted the company's year-end current liabilities on Lines 16-18, reaching a net current asset amount of -$23,770. Thus, the company's accounts receivable - which were considered in its current assets - do not demonstrate its ability to pay in 2024.
The Petitioner contends that copies of its monthly business checking account statements in 2024 support its ability to pay the proffered wage that year. The company notes that the statements show an average, end-of-month balance of $90,334 in 2024.
The bank account statements, however, show that the Petitioner ended 2024 with about $21,405 in its account, the same amount stated on Line 1, "cash," of Schedule L of the Petitioner's 2024 federal income tax return. Thus, the Director considered the bank account funds in her net current asset analysis. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual E.4(B) ("If the petitioner submits all monthly statements since the priority date, the petitioner must establish that the amounts reported on the bank statements have not already been considered elsewhere, such as in a calculation of the petitioner's net current assets.") Also, the company has not shown that it did not obligate higher balance amounts in prior months for other purposes or otherwise demonstrate the bank funds' availability to pay the proffered wage that year. Id. The bank accounts therefore do not demonstrate the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage in 2024.
As the Petitioner argues on appeal, the Director improperly discounted a letter from the company's accountant. The February 2026 letter states the company's possession of $174,406.56 in accounts receivable that it purportedly could have used to pay the proffered wage. Citing precedent case law, the Director discounted the letter, stating: "Simply going on record without supporting substantive evidence to support assertions, is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings."Claims not backed by documents See Matter ofSoffici, 22 I. & N. Dec. 158, 165 (BIA 1998).
The copy of the Petitioner's 2025 federal income tax return, however, states that the company ended 2025 with accounts receivable of $174,407. Thus, evidence supported the information in the accountant's letter, and the Director therefore should have considered it. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual E.4(B) ("Ultimately, USCIS considers all evidence relevant to the petitioner's financial strength and the significance of its business activities, whether listed in the regulation or related to other metrics.") Nevertheless, the record shows that the Director's error was harmless. See Beltran-Resendez, 207 F .3d at 287; see generally Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at 336 n.5. As previously discussed, the Petitioner already demonstrated its ability to pay the proffered wage in 2025 based on a combination of wages paid and net income. Thus, the accountant's letter regarding the accounts receivable at the end of 2025 was not needed to establish the company's ability to pay in 2025. Also, as previously discussed, the company's accounts receivable in 2024, when properly considered against current liabilities, do not demonstrate its ability to pay the proffered wage. See Matter ofCaron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (while the immigration service may accept expert testimony, "the Service is responsible for making the final determination regarding a beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought").
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not demonstrated its ability to pay the proffered wage. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l )(iv). Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 ofthe Act through the issuance of a Form I-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.