The Petitioner, a provider of information technology consulting and development services, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as an SAP consultant under the immigrant classification of member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b )(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(A).
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the record did not establish the bona fides of the job offer or the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage.
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner submits additional evidence and argument in support of the bona fides of the job offer and its ability to pay the proffered wage. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
The Bona Fides of the Job Offer
An employer "desiring and intending" to employ a foreign national in the United States may file an immigrant petition on his or her behalf. INA§ 204(a)(l)(F), 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(l)(F).
A petitioner must intend to employ a beneficiary pursuant to the terms and conditions of an accompanying labor certification. See Matter of Izdebska, 12 I&N Dec. 54, 54 (Reg'l Comm'r 1966) (upholding a petition denial where a petitioner did not intend to employ a beneficiary as a live-in domestic worker pursuant to the accompanying labor certification). For labor certification purposes, the term "employment" means "[p ]ermanent, full-time work by an employee for an employer other than oneself." 20 C.F.R. § 656.3.
In the instant case, an ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification (labor certification), approved by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), accompanies the petition. The labor certification states the Petitioner's intention to employ the Beneficiary as an SAP consultant from its headquarters in . Florida. The labor certification also indicates that the offered position involves "travel to various unanticipated locations throughout the U.S. for different short and long term assignments."
A. The Discrepancy between the Petitioner's Numbers of Employees and Visa Petitions The Director's request for evidence (RFE) of December 3, 2014 requests additional evidence of the Petitioner's intention to employ the Beneficiary in the offered position.Inconsistencies in the record The RFE states the Petitioner's filing of 129 petitions for immigrant and nonimmigrant workers with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) since December 5, 2011. However, on the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the Petitioner stated its employment of only 31 employees. 1 The Director found that the difference between the Petitioner's numbers of visa petitions and employees cast doubt on its intention to employ its beneficiaries. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record by independent, objective evidence). The Director apparently suspected that the offered positions stated in the petitions did not exist, or that the beneficiaries would be employed in the offered positions by businesses other than the Petitioner.
USCIS records do not support the Petitioner's explanation in its February 6, 2015, letter that the beneficiaries of about 65 approved H-1B nonimmigrant petitions "never joined the petitioner due to employee/consulate issues (subsequently withdrawn)." However, USCIS records also do not support the Director's finding that the amount of visa petitions filed by the Petitioner indicates a lack of intention to employ the Beneficiary in the offered position.
USCIS records indicate the Petitioner's filing of 127 nonimmigrant and immigrant visa petitions from December 5, 2011 until the issuance of the Director's RFE on December 3, 2014? USCIS records identify 98 of the 127 petitions as petitions for H-1B nonimmigrant workers. Like the instant petition, the remaining 29 petitions are I-140 petitions for H-1B workers of the Petitioner.
USCIS records also indicate that 39 of the Petitioner's 98 H-1B petitions were denied, revoked, or rejected. The Petitioner filed the remaining 59 H-1B petitions on behalf of 39 people, as 20 petitions sought extensions of status for existing employees. In addition, the Petitioner submitted evidence of its withdrawal offive H-1B petitions between 2012 and 2014?
The record does not indicate a material discrepancy between the Petitioner's stated employment of 31 people and its filings since December 5, 2011 ofH-lB petitions for 39 people and I-140 petitions for 29 of those people. The Petitioner's Forms W-2 for 2013 and 2014 indicate payments in one or both years to 3 7 of its 3 9 H -1 B beneficiaries and to 26 of its 29 I -140 beneficiaries. The record therefore does not indicate the Petitioner's filing of petitions without intentions to employ their beneficiaries. 1 The Petitioner's number of employees varies in the record. The Form I-140 and accompanying labor certification state the Petitioner's employment of 31 workers. However, in a February 6, 2015, letter in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner stated its employment of25 people.
Thus, the record does not support the Director's finding that the amount of visa petitions filed by the Petitioner indicates a lack of intention to permanently employ the Beneficiary in the offered position. B. The Permanent, Full-Time Nature of the Offered Position The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) considered the bona fides of job offers similar to the instant position in Matter of Amsol, Inc., 2008-INA-00112, 2009 WL 2869970 (BALCA Sept. 3, 2009). As in the instant case, the employer in Amsol sought to employ computer professionals from its headquarters and other "unanticipated" client sites in the United States. Amsol, 2009 WL 2869970 at *3.
In Amsol, the DOL stated its inability to determine whether the offered positions constituted full-time, permanent jobs because the record lacked evidence regarding: specific clients for whom the beneficiaries would work; their proposed lengths of employment; and the effect of terminations of client contracts on their status and compensation if no imminent re-assignments existed. !d. The DOL requested additional evidence from the employer, including copies of contracts under which the foreign nationals would be employed. Id.
The employer in Amsol provided copies of client contracts under which the foreign nationals worked. Id. at *9. However, DOL denied the labor certification applications, finding that the contracts did not provide addresses, job duties, or work schedules as requested. Id. In vacating the DOL's decisions, BALCA stated: "While the Employer has the burden of proving that the job opportunity is permanent and full-time, requiring an employer to change the nature of its contracts and how it does business in order to meet a specific demand is not realistic." Id.
The DOL also found that the employer in Amsol did not address the effect of contract terminations on the status and compensation of the foreign nationals. !d. However, BALCA found that the employer submitted copies of numerous contracts and tax documents showing a substantial amount of continuing business. Id.
In the instant case, the Director's RFE requested evidence similar to that sought by the DOL in Amsol. The Director's RFE sought: the address of the Beneficiary's intended worksite; copies of contracts under which she would be employed; and identification of the entities that would pay her and control her work.
In response to the RFE, the letter from the Petitioner's former president/sole shareholder states the company's intention to permanently employ the Beneficiary in the offered position on a full-time basis. The letter states that the Petitioner will pay her proffered wage and control her work while she performs the job duties of the offered position at contracted client sites. The letter states: "Once a particular software development consulting project is completed, the contract is effectively over and the SAP Consultant is then assigned to another project at another site or our development projects." The Petitioner also submitted a sample copy of a client contract for its services, effective January 2, 2015. However, similar to the DOL's decisions in Amsol, the Director faulted the contract and other p. 4 documentation submitted by the Petitioner for failing to identify the Beneficiary as a worker and to specify: her rate of pay; her hours; the length of her employment; the worksite address; and which entity would pay her. Noting that the sample contract became effective after the petition's priority date, the Director also found that the document did not demonstrate "a job offer available to the beneficiary at the time this petition was submitted to USCIS."
The Director erred in requiring the Petitioner to submit evidence of the Beneficiary's intended worksite address and contracts under which she would be employed from the petition's priority date. As BALCA stated in Amsol, "requiring an employer to change the nature of its contracts and how it does business in order to meet a specific demand is not realistic." Amsol, 2009 WL 2869970 at *9. Moreover, as the Petitioner argues, an immigrant visa petition represents an offer of future employment. USCIS regulations do not require the Beneficiary to currently work for the Petitioner in the offered position, or even her physical presence in the United States. The Petitioner's inability to produce contracts and details of the Beneficiary's proposed work assignments does not preclude the Petitioner's intention to employ her in the offer position.
While the Petitioner need not provide contracts and proposed work assignments specific to the Beneficiary, it must establish the existence of a valid job offer as of the petition's priority date. It is therefore reasonable to expect evidence of prior and ongoing development projects on which the Beneficiary could have worked in the offered position. However, unlike the employer in Amsol, the Petitioner submitted a copy of only one client contract. The record therefore does not establish the Petitioner's intention to permanently employ her in the full-time offered position from the petition's priority date onward.
The Petitioner submitted tax documentation indicating its generation of substantial business and copies of payroll records indicating regular monthly payments to the Beneficiary and to other employees for full-time services rendered in 2014. These materials demonstrate the Petitioner's general business activities. However, the materials do not establish its intent to employ the Beneficiary in the specific offered position of SAP Consultant.
The Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish its intention to employ the Beneficiary in the offered position on a permanent, full-time basis. We will therefore affirm the Director's finding that the record does not establish the bona fides of the job offer.
Ability to Pay the Proffered Wage
A petitioner must demonstrate its continuing ability to pay a proffered wage from a petition's priority date until a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). Evidence of ability to pay must include copies of annual reports, federal income tax returns, or audited financial statements. !d.
In the instant case, the accompanying labor certification states the proffered wage of the offered position of SAP consultant as $83,800 per year. The petition's priority date is January 24, 2013, the date the DOL received the labor certification application for processing. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d).
The record before the Director closed on February 20, 2015, with his receipt of the Petitioner's response to his RFE. At that time, required evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage in 2014 was not yet available. We will therefore consider the Petitioner's ability to pay only in 2013, the year of the petition's priority date.4
In determining a petitioner's ability to pay, we first examine whether it paid a beneficiary the full proffered wage each year from a petition's priority date. If a petitioner did not pay a beneficiary the full proffered wage each year, we next examine whether it generated sufficient annual amounts of net income or net current assets to pay the difference between the wages paid, if any, and the proffered wage. If a petitioner's net income or net current assets are insufficient, we may also consider other evidence of its ability to pay the proffered wage. See Matter of Sonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612, 614-15 (Reg'l Comm'r 1967).5
In the instant case, the Petitioner states its employment of the Beneficiary since September 2014. There is no evidence of payments by the Petitioner to the Beneficiary in 2013. The record therefore does not establish the Petitioner's ability to pay in 2013 based on wages paid to the Beneficiary.
The Petitioner's federal income tax return for 2013 reflects net income of $103,478 and net current assets of $233,537. Although both figures exceed the annual proffered wage of $83,800, as stated in the Director's RFE, USCIS records indicate the Petitioner's filing of multiple I-140 petitions. USCIS records indicate the Petitioner's filing of 25 petitions for other beneficiaries from the instant petition's priority date of January 24, 2013 to the RFE's issuance on December 3, 2014.6 USCIS records also indicate the Petitioner's filing of four other petitions before the instant petition's priority date that remained pending after that date. 7
A petitioner must demonstrate its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage of each petition it files. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(g)(2). Therefore, the instant Petitioner must demonstrate its continuing ability to pay the combined proffered wages of the instant Beneficiary and the beneficiaries of its other petitions that remained pending after the instant petition's priority date. The Petitioner must establish its ability to pay the combined proffered wages from the instant petition's priority date until the other beneficiaries obtained lawful permanent residence, or until the petitions were denied, withdrawn, or revoked. See Patel v. Johnson, 2 F. Supp. 3d 108, 124 (D. Mass. 2014) (upholding our denial of a petition where a petitioner did not demonstrate its ability to pay multiple beneficiaries).
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a chart identifying three other I-140 petitions that it filed after the instant petition's priority date and their proffered wages. The Petitioner also submitted copies of IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, indicating its payments to the beneficiaries of the petitions in 2013.
The materials indicate total proffered wages for the three pending petitions identified by the Petitioner of $251,400, and the Petitioner's total payments to their beneficiaries in 2013 of $173,567.21. The difference between the proffered wages and the wages paid by the Petitioner to the three beneficiaries is $77,832.79. The Petitioner's annual net current asset amount for 2013 appears to cover this difference, as well as the Beneficiary's proffered wage.
However, the Petitioner did not provide information about the 22 other petitions that it filed from the instant petition's priority date until the issuance of the Director's RFE, or the four petitions that it filed before the instant petition's priority date that remained pending after that date. The record does not document the priority dates or proffered wages of these other petitions, or whether the Petitioner paid wages to the beneficiaries of these petitions. The record also does not indicate whether any of these other petitions were withdrawn, revoked, or denied, or whether any of the other beneficiaries obtained lawful permanent residence. Without this information, we cannot determine the Petitioner's ability to pay the combined proffered wages of all of its applicable beneficiaries. The record therefore does not establish the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the petition's priority date onward.
The Petitioner argues that it need only pay portions of two proffered wages that occurred after the pending petitions' respective priority dates of July 31, 2013 and August 3, 2013. However, the record does not indicate the beneficiaries' receipts of the entire amounts stated on their Forms W-2 after the respective priority dates. Rather, it appears that the amounts on the Forms W-2 reflect payments to the beneficiaries over the entire year of 2013. We will not consider 12 months of payments stated on the Forms W-2 to evidence an ability to pay five-month periods of proffered wages. We therefore require the Petitioner to demonstrate its ability to pay the full, annual proffered wages in 2013 of all three beneficiaries it identified.
The Petitioner also argues that it had additional funds available in a bank account to pay proffered wages in 2013. The record contains copies of2013 bank account statements indicating an average end of-month balance of$62,035.21.
However, the funds in the bank account appear to be included as "cash" in the current assets stated on Schedule L of the Petitioner's 2013 Form 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation. We considered those assets in determining the Petitioner's net current assets in 2013. The record does not indicate that the funds in the bank account supplement the Petitioner's stated net current assets for 2013. We therefore will not consider the funds in the bank account as available to pay proffered wages. As previously indicated, pursuant to Sonegawa, we may consider other evidence of a petitioner's ability to pay a proffered wage. In Sonegawa, the petitioner conducted business for more than 11 years, routinely earning gross annual incomes of about $100,000 and employing four full-time workers. Sonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. at 612. During the year of the petition's filing, however, the petitioner's federal tax returns did not reflect its ability to pay the proffered wage. !d. at 614. In that year, the petitioner relocated its business, causing it to lease two locations for a five-month period, to incur substantial moving costs, and to briefly suspend its business operations. !d. Despite the financial setbacks, the Regional Commissioner determined that the petitioner would likely resume successful business operations and had established its ability to pay. The record established the petitioner as a fashion designer whose work had been featured in national magazines. !d. at 615. Her clients included the then Miss Universe, movie actresses, society matrons, and women on lists of the best-dressed California. !d.
As in Sonegawa, we may consider evidence of a petitioner's ability to pay beyond its net income and net current assets. We may consider such factors as: the number of years a petitioner has conducted business; the growth of its business; its number of employees; the occurrence of any uncharacteristic business expenditures or losses; its reputation in its industry; whether a beneficiary will replace a current employee or outsourced service; or other evidence of its ability to pay a proffered wage. In the instant case, the record indicates the Petitioner's continuous business operations since 2011. The Form I-140 and accompanying labor certification state the Petitioner's employment of 37 people. However, as previously indicated, the February 17, 2015, letter of the Petitioner's former president/sole shareholder states its employment of 25 workers. Copies of the Petitioner's 2012 and 2013 federal income tax returns reflect increasing gross annual revenues, and amounts of salaries and wages paid.
Unlike in Sonegawa, however, the instant record does not indicate the occurrence of any uncharacteristic business expenditures or losses, or the Petitioner's outstanding reputation in its industry. The record also does not indicate the Beneficiary's replacement of a current employee or outsourced service.
Also unlike in Sonegawa, the instant Petitioner must demonstrate its ability to pay multiple beneficiaries and did not provide requested information about all of its pending petitions. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(14) (stating that "[f]ailure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be ground for denying the benefit request"). Thus, assessing the totality of circumstances in this individual case, the record does not establish the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage pursuant to Sonegawa.
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the petition's priority date onward. We will therefore affirm the Director's decision and dismiss the appeal.
Conclusion
The record does not establish the bona fides of the job offer or the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the petition's priority date onward. We will therefore affirm the Director's denial of the petition and dismiss the appeal.
The petition will be denied for the reasons indicated above, with each considered an independent and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, a petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. INA§ 291,8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner did not meet that burden.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
Cite as Matter ofS-T- Inc., ID# 15663 (AAO Mar. 2, 2016)