1 What USCIS is actually testing
In many employment-based green card cases, an approved petition is not just about the worker’s qualifications. USCIS also expects the sponsoring employer (the petitioner) to show it can pay the offered (proffered) wage. That concept is commonly referred to as “ability to pay”.
When an officer cannot see a clean, document-based explanation of how the offered wage is covered for the relevant period, the file often triggers an I-140 ability to pay RFE. The issue is frequently not “no money,” but “unclear math”: the wage amount is not tied to the right years, the wrong entity is shown, or the financial documents are incomplete.
This guide explains how officers typically read net income, net current assets, and payroll evidence; how the review is often anchored to the priority date; and how to reduce avoidable RFEs through structure and consistency (without promising outcomes).
2 Contents
- 3. Mini-Glossary & Quick Facts
- 4. Big Picture: How “Ability to Pay” Works
- 5. Step-by-Step: Building a Readable Employer Package
- 6. Interactive: Gap Calculator (Offered Wage vs Payroll)
- 7. Table: Evidence Types and Common RFE Triggers
- 8. Charts: Officer Logic and “Year-by-Year” View
- 9. Strategy: Reducing RFE Risk Safely
- 10. Common Pitfalls, RFEs, and Denials
- 11. FAQs (2025)
- 12. Primary Sources (Official)
3 Mini-Glossary & Quick Facts
Key terms (plain language)
- Offered (Proffered) Wage — the wage stated for the sponsored position (often tied to PERM). USCIS tests whether the employer can pay this amount.
- Priority Date (PD) — the anchor date that often drives the “year-by-year” ability-to-pay review (frequently the PERM filing date; case-specific details can vary).
- 8 CFR 204.5(g)(2) — the regulation that describes the ability-to-pay requirement and typical evidence categories (tax returns, audited statements, annual reports).
- Net Income — the employer’s annual profit figure in tax/financial records; officers may compare it to the offered wage (or the unpaid portion).
- Net Current Assets — current assets minus current liabilities; a liquidity-focused metric that sometimes matters when profit is not the best proxy for cash position.
- Payroll Evidence — W-2s, pay stubs, and related documentation showing actual wages paid to the beneficiary.
- RFE / NOID — a Request for Evidence / Notice of Intent to Deny; often signals “unclear proof,” not necessarily a final negative decision.
Quick facts (what to know before filing)
- Ability to pay is often evaluated year by year starting from the PD—not only “as of today.”
- If the beneficiary is already on payroll, that can be strong evidence for those periods—but a gap still matters if payroll is below the offered wage.
- Common RFE wording may point directly to the issue: for example net current assets I-140 or ability to pay offered wage priority date.
- Incomplete documents (missing pages, schedules, or audit opinions) routinely lead to RFEs, even when the underlying numbers are fine.
Next we step back and translate the concept into how officers typically read the record—so you can build a package that answers the question quickly and cleanly.
4 Big Picture: How “Ability to Pay” works in practice
Ability to pay is not a separate application. It is a proof requirement inside the I-140 adjudication when the case involves an employer-sponsored job offer. In plain terms, USCIS wants to see that the employer had (and has) a realistic financial basis to pay the offered wage during the relevant period.
In practice, many RFEs happen because the officer cannot follow the file’s logic quickly. The documents may exist, but the record does not show a clear bridge: offered wage amount → time window → which official document proves coverage.
Who is most likely to see extra scrutiny
- Smaller employers and startups where profit can swing and liquidity is not obvious without a balance-sheet picture.
- High offered wages relative to the employer’s typical annual expenses.
- Cases where payroll or financial records come from an affiliated entity, creating entity-mismatch questions.
Three common evidence “lanes”
- Net Income: annual profit supports the offered wage (or the unpaid portion).
- Net Current Assets: liquidity supports ability to pay even when profit is not a clean proxy.
- Payroll: documented wages actually paid to the beneficiary for specific periods.
5 Step-by-Step: Building an employer package officers can read fast
A strong ability-to-pay submission is not “more PDFs.” It is a clear sequence that makes the officer’s job easy: for each relevant year, show the offered wage, show what was actually paid (if anything), and show what covers the remainder.
- Confirm the offered wage amount and format (annual vs hourly) exactly as it appears in the underlying process.
- Identify the “starting point” for the review—frequently the priority date—and list the years that must be supported.
- If the beneficiary has been employed, compile payroll by year as the base for a gap calculation.
- Use official records for the relevant years and ensure they are complete (all pages, schedules, audit opinions where applicable).
- Make sure the documents match the petitioner’s legal entity (avoid mixing records from affiliates without clear support).
- Prioritize readability: clean scans, consistent year labeling, and easy cross-reference to the offered wage.
- If payroll meets or exceeds the offered wage for a year, that year is usually straightforward.
- If payroll is below the offered wage, calculate the gap and show how the employer covers it for that year.
- If there is no payroll, the presentation relies more heavily on net income and/or net current assets for each year in the window.
- A practical format is: question → document → number → conclusion, repeated year by year.
- Explanations should help the officer read the numbers, not replace them.
6 Interactive: Gap calculator (offered wage vs payroll)
This simple tool illustrates the core concept: if the beneficiary was paid less than the offered wage for a year, the remaining amount is the gap. In many cases, that gap is what must be explained and supported through annual employer documentation.
Interpretation: If payroll ≥ offered wage, the gap is 0 for that year. If payroll is lower, that is not automatically fatal, but it increases the importance of clean year-specific documentation and a consistent coverage explanation.
7 Table: “Ability to Pay” evidence — where it works, and where it breaks
The table below summarizes what officers tend to find persuasive and what commonly triggers follow-up questions. Most problems fall into predictable categories: missing pages, wrong years, wrong entity, or an unexplained gap.
| Evidence type | When it’s usually strongest | Common RFE triggers / officer questions |
|---|---|---|
| Federal tax returns | When complete for the relevant years and easy to tie to offered wage coverage (clear year labeling, consistent entity). | Missing pages/schedules; wrong years for the PD window; figures don’t clearly cover the offered wage; entity mismatch (different employer shown). |
| Audited financial statements | When a balance-sheet view is needed and the audit opinion supports reliability (often helpful for net current assets analysis). | Not actually audited; missing audit opinion; unclear period; liquidity math is not obvious from the presented pages. |
| Annual report | For companies where annual reports provide sufficient financial detail and clearly correspond to the relevant year(s). | Reads like marketing; too little financial data; doesn’t cover the right years; unclear whether it is an official financial record. |
| Payroll evidence (W-2s, pay stubs) | When it clearly shows wages paid to the beneficiary for specific periods and supports an easy gap calculation. | Payroll below offered wage with no documented coverage for the gap; payroll from a different entity; period/position inconsistencies; beneficiary identity not clear. |
| Explanatory materials (cover letters, structure summaries) | When used to help the officer read the numbers (not replace them) and to clarify entity structure or one-time events with supporting documents. | Explanations substitute for missing financial records; statements conflict with the numbers; no year-by-year PD logic; “growth story” without proof. |
8 Charts: the “coverage” logic (labels black, ≥15px)
These visuals illustrate the concept in a simplified way: (1) the three common evidence lanes and (2) a sample gap scenario. They are educational illustrations, not a case prediction.
Concept-only chart: it shows structure, not “ranking” or approval probability.
Example: offered wage $120k, payroll $80k → gap $40k. Typical follow-up: what documented evidence covers the gap for that year?
9 Strategy: Reducing RFE risk safely
Ability-to-pay RFEs often come from preventable presentation issues. The goal is not to “sell” the company. The goal is to make the officer’s verification path short and consistent across the record.
- Many files are reviewed year-by-year from the priority date window. One weak year can drive the entire RFE discussion.
- When you prepare the package around the PD timeline, you reduce ambiguity and help the officer confirm coverage faster.
- Keep the offered wage amount consistent across the record and avoid mixing annual and hourly logic without clear conversion.
- Use the correct petitioner entity in every exhibit. If affiliates matter, document and explain the relationship clearly (without relying on assumptions).
- Payroll can be powerful because it is concrete, but it must clearly match the beneficiary and the relevant periods.
- If payroll is below the offered wage, show the gap and the year-specific coverage logic instead of leaving the officer to guess.
10 Common pitfalls that trigger RFEs (and sometimes denials)
Even strong employers can receive an RFE if the record looks incomplete or inconsistent. These are the patterns that show up repeatedly:
- One weak year in the PD window: negative net income or low net current assets without a clear, documented coverage explanation.
- Incomplete submissions: missing schedules, missing pages, missing audit opinion, or unreadable scans.
- Entity confusion: payroll and financial records from different companies with no clear documentation tying them to the petitioner’s obligation.
- Wage mismatch: different offered wage figures appear across exhibits, or annual/hourly logic is mixed without a clean conversion.
- Gap is present but never addressed: payroll is below the offered wage and the file does not explain what covers the remaining amount.
- General statements instead of proof: “the company is growing” without year-specific, verifiable documentation rarely helps.
In practice, most RFEs are solvable when the response rebuilds the logic in a way that is easy to verify—especially year-by-year from the PD.
11 FAQs — I-140 Ability to Pay (2025)
1) From what date does USCIS usually evaluate ability to pay?
Many cases are evaluated starting from the priority date and then by year. The exact anchor can vary by case type and filing history, but the practical takeaway is consistent: the evidence should cover the relevant years and make the year-by-year logic obvious.
2) Which matters more: net income or net current assets?
Either can matter. Net income can be a direct “coverage” signal, while net current assets can be important when liquidity tells a clearer story than profit. The decisive factor is usually whether the submission makes the math verifiable and tied to the offered wage and time window.
3) Can an employer get an I-140 ability to pay RFE even if the beneficiary is already working?
Yes. RFEs often occur when payroll is below the offered wage (creating a gap), when payroll is from a different entity, or when periods and job details do not match cleanly. Payroll helps, but it does not automatically answer year-by-year coverage questions.
4) What if the company had one “bad” year?
One weak year is not automatically fatal, but it frequently becomes the focus of the RFE. The safest approach is complete documents for that year, a clear gap calculation (if relevant), and an explanation that stays consistent with the official numbers rather than marketing language.
5) Do multiple sponsored workers (multiple I-140s) affect ability to pay?
Officers may expect more clarity when an employer has multiple wage obligations. That does not mean the case cannot succeed, but it can increase scrutiny. A clear, documented approach that is consistent across years becomes even more important.
6) Is there one “magic” document that always resolves ability to pay?
Usually no. The strongest submissions combine complete annual employer records for the relevant years with payroll evidence (when available) and short explanations that make the officer’s verification path simple.
12 Primary sources (official)
- USCIS (official portal)
- USCIS — Form I-140 (page + instructions)
- eCFR (official CFR access) — see 8 CFR 204.5(g)(2)
- USCIS Policy Manual (always verify the current version)
- DOL FLAG (PERM and related processes, if applicable)
USCIS guidance and requirements can change. Always verify the latest USCIS and eCFR language for your filing and the relevant year(s).
