Matter of Great Wall

-who last entered the United States as a nonimmigrant student. Review .Dfhis Statement of Qualifications submitted with the petition and signed D ecember 19, 1975, reflects that his major field of study from July 1970 through November 1974 was industrial engineering without receipt of a degree. In January 1974 he began study at Simpson College and re- ceived a Bachelor of Arts Degree with an economics major on May 25, 1975. The petitioner in his job offer, which is dated December 16, 1975, stated he wished to hire the beneficiary as a store manager at the rate of 8350.00 per month for a 40-48-hour week. In the job offer and the

-其最后一次进入美国时作为非移民学生。随申请提交并签署于1975年12月19日的资格声明审查显示，其从1970年7月至1974年11月的主要学习领域为工业工程，未获得学位。1974年1月，他开始在辛普森学院学习，并于1975年5月25日获得经济学专业文学学士学位。 申请人在其日期为1975年12月16日的工作邀请中表示，他希望以每月8350.00的工资雇用受益人为商店经理，每周工作40-48小时。在工作邀请和

Interim Decision #2566

临时决定第2566号

petition itself (filed with the Service on April 9, 1976) he stated that the annual income of the organization was $50,000.00, and that there were two to three other employees at the establishment. There is no question that the beneficiary meets the requirements as set forth in the certified job offer. The issue herein is whether the petitioner is qualified to proffer the employment. It is noted that the petitioner's original request for labor certification was denied on January 22, 1976, but the denial was reversed on March 24, 1976, on the basis of the petitioner's assurance that the wage offer would be increased. Further Service inquiry of the petitioner's business revealed that Great Wall, Inc., has issued $21,000.00 worth of common stock. Mr. Shau Chung Hu, who signed the petition, owns $10,000.00, the ben- eficiary owns $10,000.00 and the beneficiary's sister owns $1,600.00 worth of stock in the company. The beneficiary has also loaned the corporation $3,000.00 which ad- mittedly was to cover operating expenses rather than for expansion of the business. The source of these funds was his mother. The beneficiary also admitted that although he had been employed by Great Wall, Inc., since September 1975, he had Tint received a salary as of September 14, 1976. It was further revealed that the two to three employees shown on the petitioner's job offer were, in fact, two part-time employees. The estimated inventory of Great Wall, Inc., as of September 14, 1976, was $10,000.00. At that time the following total sales were shown in the corporation's books: November 1975 — $4,190.00 December 1975 — 8,278.00 January 1976 — 2,223.00 February 1976 — 1,802.00 March 1976 — 2,086.00 April 1976 — 1,700.00 May 1976 — 1,736.00 June 1976 — 2,222.00

申请本身（于1976年4月9日向移民局提交）中，他声明该组织的年收入为50,000.00美元，该场所还有两到三名其他雇员。毫无疑问，受益人符合经认证的工作邀请中规定的要求。本案的问题是申请人是否有资格提供该就业机会。值得注意的是，申请人最初的劳工证申请于1976年1月22日被拒绝，但该拒绝于1976年3月24日被推翻，依据是申请人保证将提高工资提议。 移民局对申请人业务的进一步调查显示，长城公司已发行价值21,000.00美元的普通股。签署申请的Shau Chung Hu先生拥有10,000.00美元，受益人拥有10,000.00美元，受益人的姐妹拥有该公司价值1,600.00美元的股票。 受益人还向公司借出了3,000.00美元，承认该款项用于支付运营费用而非业务扩张。这些资金的来源是其母亲。受益人也承认，尽管他自1975年9月起受雇于长城公司，但截至1976年9月14日他尚未收到工资。进一步显示，申请人工作邀请中所示的两到三名雇员实际上是两名兼职雇员。截至1976年9月14日，长城公司的估计库存为10,000.00美元。当时公司账簿中显示以下总销售额： 1975年11月 — 4,190.00美元 1975年12月 — 8,278.00美元 1976年1月 — 2,223.00美元 1976年2月 — 1,802.00美元 1976年3月 — 2,086.00美元 1976年4月 — 1,700.00美元 1976年5月 — 1,736.00美元 1976年6月 — 2,222.00美元

There were no figures for July and August, 1976. Monthly rent for the shop was $538.00, electricity $40.00—$100.00, and salary for the two part-time employees was $200.00 $300.00 per month. On appeal, the petitioner, through counsel, concedes that the shop will not realize a profit, and, in fact, will suffer a loss. However, the petitioner urges that a prospective view of the venture be taken since it is relatively new. An uncertified income statement was submitted on appeal covering the period June 1, 1975 to May 31, 1976, which reflects a net loss (based on fiscal year) of $2,110.37. The petitioner also stated for the record in a letter dated December 29, 1976, that the beneficiary is now receiving his wages and will continue to receive them; however, no

没有1976年7月和8月的数字。该店月租金为538.00美元，电费40.00美元—100.00美元，两名兼职雇员的工资为每月200.00美元—300.00美元。 在上诉中，申请人通过律师承认该店不会实现盈利，事实上将遭受亏损。然而，申请人主张应对该企业采取前瞻性视角，因为它相对较新。上诉时提交了一份未经认证的损益表，涵盖1975年6月1日至1976年5月31日期间，显示净亏损（基于财政年度）为2,110.37美元。申请人还在1976年12月29日的信函中为记录声明，受益人现在正在领取工资并将继续领取；然而，没有

evidence to support such claim has been produced. The brief on appeal, among other things, stated that the beneficiary's salary will be paid in stocks at the next annual meeting of the corporation. The fact that the petitioner may, sometime in the future, be able to pay the wage of $850.00 per month has been taken into consideration. However, in visa petition proceedings the burden of proof to establish eligibility rests with the petitioner (Matter of Brantigan , 11 I. & N. Dec. 493). The record in the instant case reflects that at the time the petition was filed with this Service the petitioner did not and could not pay the offered wage. Prospectively, the petitioner has not conclusively borne his burden and established on appeal that he can and will be able to pay the beneficiary the salary of $850.00 per month as offered on December 16, 1975. The certification required by section 212(a)(14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, (the Act) was issued on March 24, 1976. At the time that Section 212(a)(14) was originally enacted, the drafters of the Immigration and Nationality Act stated that the purpose of the provision was "to provide strong safeguards for American labor and to provide American labor protection against an influx of aliens entering the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor where the economy of individual localities is not capable of absorbing them at the time they desire to enter this country." (Em- phasis supplied.) H.R. Rep. No. 1365, 82nd Cong. 2nd Session (1952), reprinted in (1952) U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1705. The petition, if approved, would establish a priority date as of the date that the job offer (Form MA 7-50B) was accepted for processing by any office within the employment service system of the Department of Labor. In the instant case the priority date for visa issuance to the beneficiary would be January 2, 1976, pursuant to Federal Lea -illations at 8 C.F.R. 204.1(c)(2). Section 204(a) of the Act requires the filing of a visa_ petition for classification under section 203(a)(6). Section 204(b) states, among other things, "After an investigation of the facts in each case, and after consultation with the Secretary of Labor with respect to petitions to accord a status under Section 203(a)(3) or (6), the Attorney General shall, if he determines that the facts stated in the petition are true and that the alien in behalf of whom the petition is made is . . . eligible for a preference status under Section 203(a), approve the petition . . ." (Em- phasis supplied.) When a sixth-preference petition is filed, it seeks to establish that the employer is making a realistic job offer to an alien who is Qualified, and that the proposed employment will not displace United States workers dL Lhe time the petition is filed. I du nut feel, nor du I believe the Congress intended, that the petitioner, who admittedly could not pay

支持该主张的证据已被提供。上诉状除其他事项外声明，受益人的工资将在公司下一次年度会议上以股票支付。 申请人可能在未来某个时候能够支付每月850.00美元的工资这一事实已被考虑在内。然而，在签证申请程序中，证明资格的举证责任在于申请人（Brantigan案，11 I. & N. Dec. 493）。本案记录显示，在向本移民局提交申请时，申请人没有也无法支付所提议的工资。前瞻性地看，申请人并未确凿地承担其举证责任并在上诉中证明其能够并将能够向受益人支付1975年12月16日所提议的每月850.00美元工资。 经修订的《移民与国籍法》（该法）第212(a)(14)条所要求的认证于1976年3月24日签发。在第212(a)(14)条最初颁布时，《移民与国籍法》的起草者指出，该条款的目的是“为美国劳工提供强有力的保障，并保护美国劳工免受外国人涌入美国从事熟练或非熟练劳动的影响，因为在外国人希望进入该国时，个别地方的经济无法吸收他们。”（着重号为原文所加。）H.R. Rep. No. 1365, 82nd Cong. 2nd Session (1952)，重印于(1952) U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1705。 该申请如获批准，将确立优先日期为工作邀请（表格MA 7-50B）被劳工部就业服务系统内任何办公室接受处理的日期。在本案中，根据8 C.F.R. 204.1(c)(2)的联邦法规，向受益人签发签证的优先日期将为1976年1月2日。 该法第204(a)条要求提交签证申请以根据第203(a)(6)条进行分类。第204(b)条规定，除其他事项外，“在对每个案件的事实进行调查后，并就根据第203(a)(3)或(6)条授予身份的申请与劳工部长协商后，司法部长如确定申请中陈述的事实属实且申请所代表的外国人……有资格获得第203(a)条下的优先身份，则应批准该申请……”（着重号为原文所加。） 当提交第六优先申请时，它寻求确立雇主向合格外国人提供现实的工作邀请，且拟议的就业不会在提交申请时取代美国工人。我不认为，也不相信国会意图让一个在提交申请时承认无法支付

the offered wage at the time the petition was filed, should subsequently become eligible to have the petition approved under a new set of facts hinged upon probability and projections, even beyond the information presented on appeal. Eligibility for the preference being sought at the time of filing of the petition was previously decided by the Regional Commissioner in Rat- ter of Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. 45. I am aware that Katigbak is not foursquare with the instant case in that the Regional Commissioner considered the beneficiary's eligibility for third preference at the time the petition was filed. However, it was determined that the beneficiary must be qualified at the time the petition is filed with this Service if a priority date for visa issuance is to be established. In sixth-preference visa petition proceedings the Service must con- sider the merits of the petitioner's job offer, so that a determination can be made whether the job offer is realistic and whether the wage offer can be met, as well as determine whether the alien meets the minimum requirements to perform the offered job satisfactorily. It follows that such consideration by the Service would necessarily be focused on the circumstances at the time of filing of the petition. The petitioner in the instant case cannot expect to establish a priority date for visa issuance for the beneficiary when at the time of making the job offer and the filing of the petition with this Service he could not, in all reality, pay the salary as stated in the job offer. See Matter of Sonegawa, 12 I. & N. Dec. 612, wherein it is held that the petitioner must demonstrate finan- cial ability to meet the wage requirements of the certified job offer. The brief and documentation in support of the appeal before me do not substantially challenge the initial material on file considered by the District Director in his decision. I have carefully considered the entire record in this matter and T concur with the findings of the District Director. Accordingly, I will order that the appeal be dismissed. The denial of this petition is without prejudice to the submission of a new petition accompanied by a new labor certification establishing facts as they now exist. IT IS ORDERED that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

所提议工资的申请人，随后应当有资格在一套基于可能性和预测的新事实下获得申请批准，甚至超出上诉时提交的信息。 在提交申请时寻求的优先类别的资格此前已由区域专员在Katigbak案，14 I. & N. Dec. 45中裁定。我意识到Katigbak案与本案并非完全一致，因为区域专员考虑的是受益人在提交申请时获得第三优先类别的资格。然而，该案确定，如果要确立签证签发的优先日期，受益人必须在向本移民局提交申请时具备资格。 在第六优先签证申请程序中，移民局必须考虑申请人工作邀请的实质，以便确定工作邀请是否现实以及工资提议能否得到满足，同时确定外国人是否满足令人满意地履行所提供工作的最低要求。因此，移民局的此类考虑必然集中于提交申请时的情况。本案申请人不能期望在提出工作邀请和向本移民局提交申请时实际上无法支付工作邀请中所述工资的情况下，为受益人确立签证签发的优先日期。参见Sonegawa案，12 I. & N. Dec. 612，该案认定申请人必须证明满足经认证的工作邀请工资要求的财务能力。 提交给我支持上诉的摘要和文件并未实质性地质疑地区主任在其决定中考虑的初始存档材料。我已仔细考虑了本事项的整个记录，并同意地区主任的认定。因此，我将命令驳回上诉。 本申请的拒绝不影响提交新的申请并附有新的劳工证，以确立目前存在的事实。 兹命令驳回上诉。