All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to submit the 2023 federal income tax return during the RFE period despite it being available. Under Matter of Soriano, evidence first submitted on appeal that was available during the RFE stage is generally not considered. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not establish that the individual who signed the appeal notice was an authorized signatory.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner could not prove the ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date of December 12, 2022. The Petitioner's 2022 net income (-$96,398) and net current assets (-$37,766) were insufficient to cover the $41,802 difference between the wages paid and the proffered wage.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner's motions to reopen and reconsider were untimely, filed over a year after the revocation. Substantively, the Petitioner failed to resolve discrepancies between tax returns and state wage records to prove ability to pay. Furthermore, the Beneficiary did not establish the required two years of full-time experience in the job offered, and evidence suggested willful misrepresentation of her employment history.

The Petitioner's net income and net current assets were significantly below the proffered wage in the priority year. Under the Sonegawa totality of circumstances analysis, the Petitioner did not demonstrate a long-standing business reputation, significant growth, or uncharacteristic losses that would offset the financial shortfall. Furthermore, the submitted 2024 profit and loss statement did not meet regulatory requirements for audited financial statements because the auditor could not be identified.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner provided only a generalized statement regarding its ability to pay without filing a supporting brief or specifying legal or factual errors. Under Matter of Valencia, such overly broad claims are insufficient to overturn a Director's decision.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not demonstrate its ability to pay the proffered annual wage of $26,936 for 2022 and 2023. Financial records showed negative net income and net current assets. Arguments about temporary losses for long-term gain and a secured loan were not adequately documented or did not cover the entire period, and the personal finances of the owners could not be considered for the LLC.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner, a single-member LLC, failed to demonstrate its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage. USCIS determined that only the LLC's finances could be considered, not the owner's personal finances, despite the LLC being a 'disregarded entity' for tax purposes. The LLC's net income was negative in 2022 and 2023, and other factors did not sufficiently establish its ability to pay.

The appeal was dismissed because the Beneficiary failed to demonstrate the Petitioner's intent and ability to employ him in the offered job at the time of the petition's approval. The company's corporate suspension, permit revocation, and the owner's severe health issues and subsequent death indicated it could not conduct business or employ the Beneficiary. The Director's findings regarding ability to pay and alleged misrepresentations were withdrawn due to insufficient prior notice.

The motion to reopen was dismissed for not stating new facts supported by documentary evidence, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The motion to reconsider was dismissed because it did not establish that the prior decision misapplied law or USCIS policy, as per 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). USCIS affirmed that service of the NOIR to the last known address was compliant with regulations (8 C.F.R. § 103.8(a)(1) and § 103.8(b)) and rejected the Petitioner's claim of constitutional property rights in the I-140 petition, citing federal court precedents such as Musunuru v. Lynch. The beneficiary's portability claim was denied because the I-140 petition had already been revoked, consistent with Herrera v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. Finally, Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. was found inapplicable as the Petitioner lacked a constitutionally protected due process interest in the petition, and USCIS's revocation procedures satisfy due process requirements, as established in Karpeeva v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

The appeal is dismissed because the Petitioner failed to provide the initial evidence required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) to demonstrate its ability to pay the proffered wage. Current USCIS policy mandates annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements, even if the beneficiary has been paid the proffered wage, and the Petitioner did not provide these documents or explain their unavailability.