Matter of United Investment Group

The petition was denied by the district director, Los Angeles, California, and is now before the Commissioner on appeal. The petitioner is a partnership involved in real estate transac- tions. It seeks Lo employ the beneficiary in the position of a real estate sales manager and therefore submitted the instant petition seeking that the beneficiary be granted preference status pursuant to section 202(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(6) (1982). The petitioner's job offer was granted cer- tification by the Department of Labor. The district director denied this petition, finding that the busi- ness enterprise ceased to exist subsequent to the granting of labor certification and thus was unable to continue to offer the employ- ment certified. On appeal the petitioner contests this finding, asserting that the petitioner continues to do business through the auspices of a suc- cession of other business entities, and that the partnership entered into has never ceased. Title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, section 656.30(c)(2) (1984) states that "[a] labor certification involving a specific job offer is valid only for the particular job opportunity and for the area of in-

该申请被加利福尼亚州洛杉矶地区主任拒绝，现因上诉而由局长审理。 申请人是一家从事房地产交易的合伙企业。它寻求雇用受益人担任房地产销售经理职位，因此提交了本申请，请求根据《移民和国籍法》第202(a)(6)条，8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(6) (1982)，给予受益人优先地位。申请人的工作邀请已获劳工部认证。 地区主任拒绝了该申请，认定该商业企业在劳工认证获批后已停止存在，因而无法继续提供经认证的雇用。 在上诉中，申请人对此认定提出异议，主张申请人通过一系列其他商业实体的支持继续经营，且所订立的合伙企业从未终止。 《联邦法规汇编》第20编第656.30(c)(2)条 (1984) 规定，“[涉]及特定工作邀请的劳工认证仅对特定工作机会及在外国人就业认证申请表上所述预期就业地区有效。”

Interim Decision #2990

临时决定 #2990

tended employment stated on the Application for Alien Employ- ment Certification form." The issue in this proceeding in the context of the labor certifica- tion is whether the particular job opportunity remains as certified. If it does not, then the validity of the certification is considered to have expired. To remain as certified, the facts of employment or in- tended employment must remain as stated and the specific employ- er-employee relationship stipulated and intended must continue both in present fact and prospectively. A review of this fact centers on the circumstances of the petitioner and on its intent. Analysis of the issue in a certain matter extends beyond the circumstances at the time of filing to those present at the time of adjudication, and in fact, through the mechanisms provided in section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155 (1982), beyond even that point. In the matter at bar, counsel in this proceeding argues that the employer-employee relationship cited in the labor certification and petition continues in that the petitioning business enterprise con- tinues to exist and that the partnership behind the enterprise con- tinues to exist notwithstanding the changes of name since Kenneth Kim has been a principal member of the partnership at all times and never intended that the partnership cease The record in this matter establishes that the petitioning enter- prise registered with the City of Los Angeles for tax purposes in October 1980. On March 11, 1981, it submitted a request for labor certification based on its job offer to the beneficiary of the position of real estate sales manager. That was subsequently granted. Ac- cording to a 1982 statement by Kenneth Kim, the only one of the partners in this business named in this proceeding, the business closed in July 1981 when he traveled abroad, and the beneficiary's employment was terminated at that time. That same month the city of Los Angeles terminated the business' tax registration due to inactivity. Mr. Kim ostensibly returned to the United States in September 1981. In May 1982 Mr. Kim, acting in the name of the United Investment Group, submitted the instant petition. In August of 1982 Mr. Kim joined with Jim Gunn and Batik Vir- adia to form BJK Enterprises, a partnership, and the partnership registered its intent to do business in Stanton, California, under four separate names, one of those being the name of the entity that submitted this petition, which had ceased doing business in mid- 1981. That same month the beneficiary entered into a contract with James Gunn, cue of the partners in BJK Enterprises, who, acting on an individual basis, signed the contract to have the bene- ficiary act as an individual contractor in the capacity of a real estate salesperson, which same contract specifically precluded an

在劳工认证的背景下，本程序中的问题是该特定工作机会是否仍如认证所述。若非如此，则该认证的有效性被视为已过期。要保持如认证所述，就业或预期就业的事实必须保持所述状态，且所规定和意图的特定雇主-雇员关系必须在当前事实和未来预期两方面均继续存在。对此事实的审查集中于申请人的情况及其意图。对某一事项中该问题的分析超出提交时的情况，延伸至裁决时的情况，并且事实上，通过该法第205条，8 U.S.C. § 1155 (1982)，所提供的机制，甚至超出该点。 在本案中，本程序中的律师主张，劳工认证和申请中所述的雇主-雇员关系继续存在，因为申请的商业企业继续存在，且该企业背后的合伙企业继续存在，尽管自Kenneth Kim始终为合伙企业的主要成员以来名称发生变化，且从未意图使合伙企业终止。 本案记录表明，申请企业于1980年10月在洛杉矶市为税务目的注册。1981年3月11日，它基于向受益人提供房地产销售经理职位的工作邀请提交了劳工认证请求。该请求随后获批。根据Kenneth Kim 1982年的陈述，他是本程序中提到的该企业唯一合伙人，该企业于1981年7月他出国旅行时关闭，受益人的雇用当时终止。同月，洛杉矶市因不活动终止了该企业的税务登记。Kim先生表面上于1981年9月返回美国。1982年5月，Kim先生以联合投资集团的名义提交了本申请。 1982年8月，Kim先生与Jim Gunn和Batik Viradia联合组成BJK Enterprises，一家合伙企业，该合伙企业在加利福尼亚州斯坦顿注册其以四个单独名称经营的意图，其中一个名称为提交本申请的实体名称，该实体已于1981年中期停止经营。同月，受益人与James Gunn（BJK Enterprises的合伙人之一）签订合同，后者以个人身份签署合同，让受益人作为个人承包商以房地产销售员身份行事，该同一合同明确排除雇主-雇员关系。

employer-employee relationship. In an August 1983 statement, James Gunn stated that he was no longer a partner in BJK Enter- prises, that he owns and operates James Gunn Properties, Vista Realty, and Vista Financial, and that the beneficiary is now em- ployed by him. A separate statement to the County Clerk shows him as the sole registrant of this business. In a March 1984 state- ment, Kenneth Kim, a partner in the originally mentioned United Investment Group, asserted that James B. Gunn Properties and the United Investments Group had now merged into the American In- vestment Group. Each of the entities mentioned above are apparently either sole proprietorships or partnerships. A partnership is "[a] contract of two or more competent persons, to place their money, effects, labor and skill, or some of them, in lawful commerce or business, and to divide the profit and bear the loss, in certain proportions." See 68 C.J.S. Partnership § 1. The existence of a partnership must be proven, and no presumption exists as to the existence or continu- ance of a partnership from the use of a trade name Neither a sole proprietorship nor a partnership is a separate legal entity from its sole owner or members, and where a partner in one partnership enters into a second partnership of the same nature with other per- sons, his co-partners in the first partnership do not thereby become members of the second partnership. Thus, for the purpose of visa petitions, the actual partnership which existed when the job offer was made and certified must continue, and not a separately en- tered partnership between other parties and not a newly constitut- ed partnership between some of the parties of the previous partner- ship, either using the same or a new trade name. In the matter at bar there is no evidence that the partnership which existed at the time this proceeding commenced, and certifi- cation was granted, continues to exist and intends to employ the beneficiary in the stated position. Rather, all evidence points to the fact that a number of successive partnerships have at times used the same trade name. At times, there have been gaps between the very use of this name. At times, the beneficiary has worked. for in- divMuals, not for any certain partnership. Thus, it is apparent that the particular job opportunity certified does not continue to exist, in that the partnership that was then the intending employer is neither present nor intending to now offer the stated employment.

在1983年8月的陈述中，James Gunn表示他不再是BJK Enterprises的合伙人，他拥有并经营James Gunn Properties、Vista Realty和Vista Financial，且受益人现受雇于他。向县书记员的一份单独陈述显示他为该企业的唯一注册人。在1984年3月的陈述中，Kenneth Kim，最初提到的联合投资集团的合伙人，声称James B. Gunn Properties和联合投资集团现已合并为美国投资集团。 上述每个实体显然要么是独资企业，要么是合伙企业。合伙企业是“[两]个或两个以上有能力的人的合同，将其金钱、财产、劳动和技能，或其中部分，投入合法商业或业务，并按一定比例分享利润和承担损失。”见68 C.J.S. Partnership § 1。合伙企业的存在必须被证明，且不得从使用商号推定合伙企业的存在或延续。独资企业或合伙企业均非独立于其唯一所有者或成员的法律实体，且当一个合伙企业的合伙人与其他人订立性质相同的第二个合伙企业时，其在第一个合伙企业中的共同合伙人并不因此成为第二个合伙企业的成员。因此，就签证申请而言，在提出并获认证工作邀请时实际存在的合伙企业必须继续存在，而非其他当事方之间另行订立的合伙企业，也非先前合伙企业部分当事方之间新组成的合伙企业，无论使用相同或新商号。 在本案中，没有证据表明在本程序开始并获得认证时存在的合伙企业继续存在并意图按所述职位雇用受益人。相反，所有证据均指向以下事实：若干相继的合伙企业在不同时期使用同一商号。有时，在该名称的使用之间甚至存在间隔。有时，受益人为个人工作，而非为任何特定合伙企业工作。因此，显而易见，经认证的特定工作机会不再存在，因为当时作为预期雇主的合伙企业既不存在，也不意图现在提供所述雇用。

In fact, given the contracts that have been submitted, it is not apparent that the present circumstance would qualify the petition- er as the beneficiary's employer as opposed to an independent con- tractor relationship existing between the parties. Accordingly, the certification is not valid for the employment now proposed. The appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

事实上，鉴于已提交的合同，并不明显当前情况会使申请人符合受益人雇主的资格，而非当事方之间存在独立承包商关系。因此，该认证对现在提议的雇用无效。上诉将被驳回。 命令：上诉被驳回。