higcoptimist
Registered Users (C)
Hi guys,
I am pasting below, the news that appeared ia "immigration-law" web site. My question is that whether the rule is applicable only to small companies. long standing large companies, employing more that 200 persons, may show loss due this year due to the slow economy. But will that affect the I140 application of their employee?
Thanks in advance.
Higcoptimist
"11/12/2004: I-140 Deniability on Employer's Financial Inability to Pay and Service Centers' Expansion of USCIS HQ Memo
In May 2004, USCIS released a memorandum to give a guidance to the USCIS field offices on the issue of the I-140 employer's financial ability to pay the proffered wage. The memorandum was issued as the Service Centers had growingly denied I-140 petitions withoud any consistent and uniform standards. The memorandum stated that if the employer's financial statement or tax return recorded the net income in excess of the proffered salary, the field offices should take such evidence as meeting the requirement for the financial ability to pay.
Since then, the Service Centers have turned around and started digging the record of the employer's filing of I-140 petitions and acted smart by still denying a I-140 petition even if the business tax return showed the net income in excess of the proffered salary in the event that they detected that more than one I-140 petitions had been filed using the same tax return and the net income in the tax return was far short of the net aggregate of the proffered salaries in the multiple I-140 petitions which the employer had filed.
Under the circumstances, the employers may not use the formula of "net income>proffered salary" formula in all cases when they file multiple I-140 petitions in a given period of time. They should rather use combination of different standards which are set forth in the HQ memorandum. For instance, if the employer's net income meets the proffered wage for one I-140 petition but not two petitions, the employers may use net income figure in one I-140 petition and use another standard of "the alien's past/current salary=>proffered wage" for the second case by submitting not the tax returns but the alien's W-2 and latest payroll record. Of course, in this case, the employer should have paid the second nonimmigrant worker at least a salary equal to or in excess of the proffered salary. "
I am pasting below, the news that appeared ia "immigration-law" web site. My question is that whether the rule is applicable only to small companies. long standing large companies, employing more that 200 persons, may show loss due this year due to the slow economy. But will that affect the I140 application of their employee?
Thanks in advance.
Higcoptimist
"11/12/2004: I-140 Deniability on Employer's Financial Inability to Pay and Service Centers' Expansion of USCIS HQ Memo
In May 2004, USCIS released a memorandum to give a guidance to the USCIS field offices on the issue of the I-140 employer's financial ability to pay the proffered wage. The memorandum was issued as the Service Centers had growingly denied I-140 petitions withoud any consistent and uniform standards. The memorandum stated that if the employer's financial statement or tax return recorded the net income in excess of the proffered salary, the field offices should take such evidence as meeting the requirement for the financial ability to pay.
Since then, the Service Centers have turned around and started digging the record of the employer's filing of I-140 petitions and acted smart by still denying a I-140 petition even if the business tax return showed the net income in excess of the proffered salary in the event that they detected that more than one I-140 petitions had been filed using the same tax return and the net income in the tax return was far short of the net aggregate of the proffered salaries in the multiple I-140 petitions which the employer had filed.
Under the circumstances, the employers may not use the formula of "net income>proffered salary" formula in all cases when they file multiple I-140 petitions in a given period of time. They should rather use combination of different standards which are set forth in the HQ memorandum. For instance, if the employer's net income meets the proffered wage for one I-140 petition but not two petitions, the employers may use net income figure in one I-140 petition and use another standard of "the alien's past/current salary=>proffered wage" for the second case by submitting not the tax returns but the alien's W-2 and latest payroll record. Of course, in this case, the employer should have paid the second nonimmigrant worker at least a salary equal to or in excess of the proffered salary. "