Immigration Voice

Immigration Voice (https://immigrationvoice.org/forum/)
-   Ability to pay issues and other 140 RFEs etc. (https://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum82-ability-to-pay-issues-and-other-140-rfes-etc/)
-   -   Ability to Pay: all questions and discussions (https://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum82-ability-to-pay-issues-and-other-140-rfes-etc/4381-ability-to-pay-all-questions-and-discussions.html)

sreech 08-02-2007 10:46 AM

Hello All

I applied 140 in EB2 and got an RFE on Education.I have a Bachelors(3year) and masters(2years) with 8 years of experience.I have submitted an education valution with the petition still got an RFE asking to provide one with the following points
1)Consider formal education only, not practical training experience
2) State the collegiate training was post secondary education i .e. did the applicant complete the United States equivalent of high school before entering college
3)provide a detailed explanation of the material evaluated and how the evaluator has reached their conclusions rather than a simple conclusive statement

any one please help who has gone through this before

thanks
sree

arunkotte 08-06-2007 01:26 PM

Re: RFE ability to pay
 
On the tax return 1120S Schedule L we have about 170,000 in the retained earnings line. Can this be used as part of the net current assets?

digital2k 08-06-2007 01:33 PM

*
 
*

lelica32 08-13-2007 09:27 AM

I have a question. My Firm is a really small one, just 1 employer + my = 2. The tax returns are not so good, becouse all the money was invested in a second business. The firm started in June 2005. The Firm has ca. $65.000 in a saving account. My salary will be $2000/month. Will be enough this $65.000 for the USCIS, for the Ability to pay.

arunkotte 08-14-2007 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by americandesi (Post 135633)
Please read page 2 of Yates memo (Refer link). The Initial evidence "Annual report", "Tax return", and "Audited financial statement" map to "Employment of the beneficiary", "Net income" and "Net current assets" respectively.

http://www.visaportal.com/downloads/...20to%20pay.pdf



My 140 is approved today. Tax returns can be used to show the net current assets satisfy the ability to pay criteria. May sure you back it up with some good explaination.

GCstuck 08-28-2007 10:06 AM

On Aug 11, 2007 - I 140 Denied Due to Ability To Pay issues

Description for denial ( I have also attached the denial notice)->

They looked at years 2003 to 2006 history for I140 since PD is JAN 03.

* Reason 1 - Lower salary than specified in labor
Preferred Wage in labor - 78,750
W2(2003) - $76,850; W2(2004) - $75,638; W2(2005) - $31,652;
W2 for 2005 is less due to company merger. I have another W2 from new company for 2005. I moved to another company due to merger but lawyer continued GC throgh old employer since the both companies exists after the merger.

* Reason 2 - negative net income of the petitioner
2003 (-$537,841); 2004(-$445,493); 2005(-$527,298); 2006(Not Submitted);

* Reason 3 - 2003 and 2004 OK but net current assets are -ve in 2005
and my lawyer did not provide 2006 information

Acceptable Assets Aceptable Liabilities Net Current Assets
2003 $4,272,733 $3,789,359 $483,374
2004 $4,871,615 $4,660,879 $210,736
2005 $5,047,775 $6,494,111 ($1,446,336)
2006 ---- Not submitted [ Company has not filed taxes yet]
For 2006 they will be filing big loss.

Does anyone know any way out of this.

arunsush 08-31-2007 11:09 AM

Approved after RFE
 
Wanted to let those interested know that my 140 EB2 got approved yesterday after RFE.

The RFE was on educational grounds. I have a 5 year integrated Msc in Physics and was -how a degree in Physics is equivalent to computer Science.

My attorney submitted a detailed analysis of all the course and a fresh educational evaluation on the 28th and it got approved on 30th.

americandesi 09-06-2007 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCstuck (Post 155633)
On Aug 11, 2007 - I 140 Denied Due to Ability To Pay issues

Description for denial ( I have also attached the denial notice)->

They looked at years 2003 to 2006 history for I140 since PD is JAN 03.

* Reason 1 - Lower salary than specified in labor
Preferred Wage in labor - 78,750
W2(2003) - $76,850; W2(2004) - $75,638; W2(2005) - $31,652;
W2 for 2005 is less due to company merger. I have another W2 from new company for 2005. I moved to another company due to merger but lawyer continued GC throgh old employer since the both companies exists after the merger.

* Reason 2 - negative net income of the petitioner
2003 (-$537,841); 2004(-$445,493); 2005(-$527,298); 2006(Not Submitted);

* Reason 3 - 2003 and 2004 OK but net current assets are -ve in 2005
and my lawyer did not provide 2006 information

Acceptable Assets Aceptable Liabilities Net Current Assets
2003 $4,272,733 $3,789,359 $483,374
2004 $4,871,615 $4,660,879 $210,736
2005 $5,047,775 $6,494,111 ($1,446,336)
2006 ---- Not submitted [ Company has not filed taxes yet]
For 2006 they will be filing big loss.

Does anyone know any way out of this.

I am sorry to know that your I-140 application got denied after such a long wait.

Your application was denied not with a combination of
Reason 1 , 2 & 3, but each reason by itself was insufficient to prove ability to pay. Your employer should meet atleast one of these to prove "Ability to Pay".

It's deplorable that most attorney's don't educate small employers on meeting ability to pay even before filing the Labor Certification.

I would suggest that you appeal the case with supporting statements from a good CPA and in the meantime go for a fresh labor certification.

gneerajg 09-11-2007 02:37 AM

Ref
 
I got a ref today the reason ability not to pay. They state that in line 21ordinary business income is less than what it should be according to PW and based on that employer was not able to PW in those years like from 2001 to 2006but the gross income was always in between 600000-1000000 each year. but can they relate your old returns with new PW. I mean does it matter based on your last 5 returns ability not to pay but currently I am drawing more than PW and my employer never filed tax`return with loss. pl. advice Does I need good CPA

40k+ in 2006
35k+ in 2005
33k+ in 2004

EB-3 PD 2001
Filed I-140 & I-485 on May 5,2007

texcan 09-11-2007 11:57 AM

if you are drawing more than PW you are fine
 
Your attoney should be able to defend your case based on you salary more than PW.

The GC process is for future employement, your bosses ability to pay exists since he has paid you more salary than PW.

Your employer may be making loss every year, but he is paying you more than PW. Now your salary in itself is an expense for employer, so the fact that he is paying you may be making his financials look a little weak in term of profit loss.


Look at other threads on RFE issues, and talk to your lawyer.
I think you are fine.

vandanaverdia 09-11-2007 12:58 PM

Guys, there is a fund drive for 30k in 8 days, please help us to achieve the goal and contribute. 18k more to go.
Help IV help you... Come to DC!!!

amao 09-12-2007 12:34 PM

company w/ more than 100 employees
 
Is it true that for a company w/ more than 100 employees, a statement letter from the CFO will be adequate as a proof for ability to pay? What info should the CFO be included in the letter?

I was so screwed by my lawyer in the LC process so I plan on DIY for the I-140 & 485.

arunkotte 09-12-2007 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amao (Post 164510)
Is it true that for a company w/ more than 100 employees, a statement letter from the CFO will be adequate as a proof for ability to pay? What info should the CFO be included in the letter?

I was so screwed by my lawyer in the LC process so I plan on DIY for the I-140 & 485.



Yes, you can submit a letter from CFO if the company has more than 100 employees.

americandesi 09-12-2007 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texcan (Post 163463)
Your attoney should be able to defend your case based on you salary more than PW.

The GC process is for future employement, your bosses ability to pay exists since he has paid you more salary than PW.

Your employer may be making loss every year, but he is paying you more than PW. Now your salary in itself is an expense for employer, so the fact that he is paying you may be making his financials look a little weak in term of profit loss.


Look at other threads on RFE issues, and talk to your lawyer.
I think you are fine.

When it comes to "employment of beneficiary" in proving ability to pay, the employer should prove that he had paid the proffered wage from the time PD is established continuing until the beneficiary obtains permanent residence.

It doesn’t matter if he’s getting paid the proffered wage now. The employer should prove the same from the time PD is established.

satishku_2000 09-12-2007 02:43 PM

since PD
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gneerajg (Post 163320)
I got a ref today the reason ability not to pay. They state that in line 21ordinary business income is less than what it should be according to PW and based on that employer was not able to PW in those years like from 2001 to 2006but the gross income was always in between 600000-1000000 each year. but can they relate your old returns with new PW. I mean does it matter based on your last 5 returns ability not to pay but currently I am drawing more than PW and my employer never filed tax`return with loss. pl. advice Does I need good CPA

40k+ in 2006
35k+ in 2005
33k+ in 2004

EB-3 PD 2001
Filed I-140 & I-485 on May 5,2007


The petitioner must show the ability to pay since establishment of PD. It does not matter if you get paid more than proferred now . Getting paid more than proferred wage always helps.

If the petitioner has more than one immigration petition pending then he has to prove that he has ability to pay for all petitions simultaneously since each petitions respective priority date.

Declaring profits help but again one has to put everything in context of immigration petition. If you got paid 10k less than proferred wage in a particualr year , petitioners profits must exceed 10k for that year. If there are 10 petitions pending in a year and all of them got paid 10k less than proferred wage petitioners profit must exceed 100k. I am trying to a put a simple example here . A right lawyer or right CPA may have ways to overcome these things.

Looks like a good sign in your case is you filed in May 2007 , is that regular or premium processing case? If it is reg processing case then looks like INS is processing cases based on PD which is a good thing should help lot of BEC folks.

Just curious if your case is a labor substution case?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c)ImmigrationVoice.org