Ability to pay demonstrated by net income on federal tax returns
AAO 为什么未被说服
The petitioner's Forms 1120-F showed zero taxable income for each year 2007–2010, and no current assets or liabilities were listed on Schedule L, making it impossible to establish ability to pay from net income or net current assets.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The petitioner's Forms 1120-F showed zero taxable income for each year 2007–2010, and no current assets or liabilities were listed on Schedule L, making it impossible to establish ability to pay from net income or net current assets.
The AAO found that the petitioner's own Forms 1120-F stated it was not conducting business in the United States and had no permanent establishment there, precluding it from qualifying as a U.S. employer under the applicable regulations.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The AAO found that the petitioner's own Forms 1120-F stated it was not conducting business in the United States and had no permanent establishment there, precluding it from qualifying as a U.S. employer under the applicable regulations.
Ability to pay demonstrated by actual compensation paid to beneficiary
AAO 为什么未被说服
The beneficiary's W-2 wages ranged from $24,400 to $36,600 annually, far below the $101,000 proffered wage. The claimed Korean compensation lacked sufficient documentation, and even if accepted would leave total compensation below the proffered wage.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The beneficiary's W-2 wages ranged from $24,400 to $36,600 annually, far below the $101,000 proffered wage. The claimed Korean compensation lacked sufficient documentation, and even if accepted would leave total compensation below the proffered wage.
The bank records were incomplete (only one of two accounts documented, covering only 18 months), monthly closing balances in some months were insufficient to cover the wage shortfall, and the bank assets were not reflected on any U.S. tax returns, further undermining their reliability as evidence of sustained ability to pay.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The bank records were incomplete (only one of two accounts documented, covering only 18 months), monthly closing balances in some months were insufficient to cover the wage shortfall, and the bank assets were not reflected on any U.S. tax returns, further undermining their reliability as evidence of sustained ability to pay.
Ability to pay demonstrated by totality of circumstances (Sonegawa)
AAO 为什么未被说服
Even considering all circumstances, the petitioner's U.S. operation generated no revenue, had a thinly capitalized branch, and provided no updated business information after 2007, giving no basis to find ability to pay under a totality-of-circumstances analysis.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
Even considering all circumstances, the petitioner's U.S. operation generated no revenue, had a thinly capitalized branch, and provided no updated business information after 2007, giving no basis to find ability to pay under a totality-of-circumstances analysis.
Ability to pay demonstrated by audited financial statements
AAO 为什么未被说服
The financial statements were internally audited and not 'audited financial statements' within the meaning of the regulation; the cover audit reports were submitted belatedly, casting doubt on their veracity; and even if properly audited, the Korean parent's financials do not represent the U.S. employer's ability to pay wages in the United States.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The financial statements were internally audited and not 'audited financial statements' within the meaning of the regulation; the cover audit reports were submitted belatedly, casting doubt on their veracity; and even if properly audited, the Korean parent's financials do not represent the U.S. employer's ability to pay wages in the United States.
serves the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO concluded the petitioner had no documented past track record as either a CEO or patent agent/attorney at the time of filing, his company was formed after filing, his patent had not issued, and his subjective belief and language/Ph.D. credentials did not show he would serve the national interest substantially more than others in the field.
为什么值得参考
理解除了希望自我申请之外，哪些与具体事业相关的事实会影响豁免分析。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO concluded the petitioner had no documented past track record as either a CEO or patent agent/attorney at the time of filing, his company was formed after filing, his patent had not issued, and his subjective belief and language/Ph.D. credentials did not show he would serve the national interest substantially more than others in the field.