All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish the ability to pay the $30,000 annual proffered wage. Financial evidence provided belonged to a subsidiary rather than the petitioning entity, and the record lacked evidence of the Petitioner's own profitability, growth, or reputation under the totality of circumstances.

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The Petitioner did not adequately address the issues of the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed U.S. employment, which were deemed waived. Furthermore, the Petitioner resubmitted previously considered documents and provided conflicting evidence regarding company ownership, failing to resolve the inconsistencies raised in prior decisions.

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The Petitioner did not resolve numerous discrepancies regarding the Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad (inconsistent dates, salary, and employer claims on NIV application) and her U.S. position (inability to describe duties during site visit, spouse performing duties, conflicting ownership information, and inconsistent tax returns).

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to address the dismissal grounds regarding the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed U.S. employment. Additionally, the Petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship between the company and the foreign employer due to internally inconsistent and unreliable tax returns and a lack of legible transactional documentation of ownership.

The Petitioner failed to resolve inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's foreign employment tenure and actual employer. The evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the U.S., as she could not describe her daily tasks and the shrinking organizational structure suggested she would be involved in day-to-day operations. The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof for executive capacity abroad or in the U.S.

The Petitioner did not resolve conflicting information regarding its ownership with independent, objective evidence such as stock certificates or ledgers. Additionally, the amended tax returns submitted on motion contained internal inconsistencies and did not match previous claims of ownership structure.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner's motion to reopen did not present new facts, and the motion to reconsider failed to identify an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the Petitioner resubmitted previously rejected evidence and failed to provide tax documentation covering the entire period from the 2018 priority date.

The Petitioner failed to establish it had been doing business for at least one year at the time of filing and did not demonstrate the ability to pay the proffered wage. Furthermore, the record contained willful misrepresentations regarding the Beneficiary's foreign employment and physical presence. The Petitioner also failed to prove a qualifying relationship or that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity abroad.