All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not provide independent, objective evidence to resolve inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's claimed employment experience. The experience certificates lacked signatory identification, and the Beneficiary's prior visa applications contradicted her employment claims. Furthermore, the Beneficiary's misrepresentations about her employment history were deemed willful and material, directly impacting her eligibility for the EB-3 unskilled worker classification requiring 12 months of experience.

The decision was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish its ability to pay the proffered annual wage of $69,000, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). Financial statements (net income of $5,476, net current assets of $6,754 in 2021, and a 2022 profit of $55,604) were insufficient, and audited statements for the priority date year were not timely submitted despite an RFE. The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed as it did not present new material facts or demonstrate an incorrect application of law.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient independent, objective evidence to resolve inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's qualifying experience. Specifically, the record did not overcome the derogatory information found in the Beneficiary's prior visa application and the ambiguous business registration certificate.

The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary gained at least two years of experience performing the specific duties listed in the labor certification. Furthermore, the evidence did not demonstrate that the beneficiary held a foreign equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in accounting. Conflicting educational evaluations and employment history discrepancies remained unresolved.

The motion was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to submit requested financial documentation during the initial filing, the RFE stage, or the appeal, and did not prove the evidence was previously unavailable. Furthermore, the evidence provided only covered the 2017 fiscal year, failing to establish a continuing ability to pay from the priority date until the present.

The Petitioner failed to establish the ability to pay the proffered wage through net income or net current assets as shown on IRS Form 1120S. Additionally, the totality of circumstances under Matter of Sonegawa did not support eligibility, as there was no evidence of uncharacteristic losses or significant industry reputation. The submitted financial statements were unaudited and therefore not persuasive under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2).