PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
SustainedEB-2 · Appeal

Occupation not stated

Other / unclear · decided 2015-06-03 · TSC · JUN032015_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.

Summary sentence

Upon review of the evidence submitted we find it more likely than not that the petitioner has demonstrated its ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onwards. See in text

What the AAO decided

Main reasons given

  • Upon review of the evidence submitted we find it more likely than not that the petitioner has demonstrated its ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onwards. See in text
Read the full decision (2 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 (4) AAO finding (1)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    DATE: JUN 0 3 2015 · INRE: Petitioner: · Beneficiary: FILE #: · PETITION RECEIPT #: U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced

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

    ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

    Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. Thank you,

    Ron Rosen1rerg

    Chief, Administrative Appeals Office

    REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov

    NON-PRECEDENT DECISION

    DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The director's decision will be withdrawn. We will sustain the appeal and the petition will be approved.

    The petitioner is a certified public accountancy. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a senior accountant, per section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), which 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. As required by statute, an ETA Form 9089, Application for Alien Employment Certification approved by the Department of Labor (DOL), accompanied the petition. Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that it had the ability to pay the proffered wage of $72,946.00 from the priority date of December 20, 2013 onwards.

    The director found that the petitioner was short $621.48 in establishing its ability to pay the proffered wage. On appeal and in response to our Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID), the petitioner has provided pay records for the beneficiary for 2013 and 2014 and an amended federal income tax return for 2013, with proof of filing the amended federal tax return.

    Upon review of the evidence submitted we find it more likely than not that the petitioner has demonstrated its ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onwards.

    Thus, the appeal will be sustained and the petition will be approved.

    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. The petition is approved.