Interim Decision *2990 

MATTER OF UNITED INVESTMENT GROUP 

In Proceedings to Classify Preference Status of Alien on Basis of 

Profession or Occupation 

A-20981457 

Decided by Commissioner June .25, 1984 

(1) Neither a sole proprietorship nor a partnership is a legal entity apart from its 

owner or owners. 

(2) For the purpose of a visa petition, the actual partnership which existed when the 

job offer was made and certified must continue and intend to employ the beneficiary as certified. A separately entered partnership or newly constituted partnership may not be a successor of interest for this purpose. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Edward Lopez, Eequiro 

3255 Wilshire Boulevard, #1034 

Los Angeles, California 90010 

The petition was denied by the district director, Los Angeles, 

California, and is now before the Commissioner on appeal. 

The petitioner is a partnership involved in real estate transactions. It seeks Lo employ the beneficiary in the position of a real 

estate sales manager and therefore submitted the instant petition 

seeking that the beneficiary be granted preference status pursuant 

to section 202(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 

U.S.C. § 1153(a)(6) (1982). The petitioner's job offer was granted certification by the Department of Labor. 

The district director denied this petition, finding that the business enterprise ceased to exist subsequent to the granting of labor 

certification and thus was unable to continue to offer the employment certified. 

On appeal the petitioner contests this finding, asserting that the 

petitioner continues to do business through the auspices of a succession of other business entities, and that the partnership entered 

into has never ceased. 

Title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, section 656.30(c)(2) (1984) 

states that "[a] labor certification involving a specific job offer is 

valid only for the particular job opportunity and for the area of in24S 
Interim Decision #2990 

tended employment stated on the Application for Alien Employment Certification form." 

The issue in this proceeding in the context of the labor certification is whether the particular job opportunity remains as certified. 

If it does not, then the validity of the certification is considered to 

have expired. To remain as certified, the facts of employment or intended employment must remain as stated and the specific employer-employee relationship stipulated and intended must continue 

both in present fact and prospectively. A review of this fact centers 

on the circumstances of the petitioner and on its intent. Analysis of 

the issue in a certain matter extends beyond the circumstances at 

the time of filing to those present at the time of adjudication, and 

in fact, through the mechanisms provided in section 205 of the Act, 

8 U.S.C. § 1155 (1982), beyond even that point. 

In the matter at bar, counsel in this proceeding argues that the 

employer-employee relationship cited in the labor certification and 

petition continues in that the petitioning business enterprise continues to exist and that the partnership behind the enterprise continues to exist notwithstanding the changes of name since Kenneth 

Kim has been a principal member of the partnership at all times 

and never intended that the partnership cease 

The record in this matter establishes that the petitioning enterprise registered with the City of Los Angeles for tax purposes in 

October 1980. On March 11, 1981, it submitted a request for labor 

certification based on its job offer to the beneficiary of the position 

of real estate sales manager. That was subsequently granted. According to a 1982 statement by Kenneth Kim, the only one of the 

partners in this business named in this proceeding, the business 

closed in July 1981 when he traveled abroad, and the beneficiary's 

employment was terminated at that time. That same month the 

city of Los Angeles terminated the business' tax registration due to 

inactivity. Mr. Kim ostensibly returned to the United States in 

September 1981. In May 1982 Mr. Kim, acting in the name of the 

United Investment Group, submitted the instant petition. 

In August of 1982 Mr. Kim joined with Jim Gunn and Batik Viradia to form BJK Enterprises, a partnership, and the partnership 

registered its intent to do business in Stanton, California, under 

four separate names, one of those being the name of the entity that 

submitted this petition, which had ceased doing business in mid1981. That same month the beneficiary entered into a contract 

with James Gunn, cue of the partners in BJK Enterprises, who, 

acting on an individual basis, signed the contract to have the beneficiary act as an individual contractor in the capacity of a real 

estate salesperson, which same contract specifically precluded an 

9/1A 
Interim Decision #2990 

employer-employee relationship. In an August 1983 statement, 

James Gunn stated that he was no longer a partner in BJK Enterprises, that he owns and operates James Gunn Properties, Vista 

Realty, and Vista Financial, and that the beneficiary is now employed by him. A separate statement to the County Clerk shows 

him as the sole registrant of this business. In a March 1984 statement, Kenneth Kim, a partner in the originally mentioned United 

Investment Group, asserted that James B. Gunn Properties and the 

United Investments Group had now merged into the American Investment Group. 

Each of the entities mentioned above are apparently either sole 

proprietorships or partnerships. A partnership is "[a] contract of 

two or more competent persons, to place their money, effects, labor 

and skill, or some of them, in lawful commerce or business, and to 

divide the profit and bear the loss, in certain proportions." See 68 

C.J.S. Partnership § 1. The existence of a partnership must be 

proven, and no presumption exists as to the existence or continuance of a partnership from the use of a trade name Neither a sole 

proprietorship nor a partnership is a separate legal entity from its 

sole owner or members, and where a partner in one partnership 

enters into a second partnership of the same nature with other persons, his co-partners in the first partnership do not thereby become 

members of the second partnership. Thus, for the purpose of visa 

petitions, the actual partnership which existed when the job offer 

was made and certified must continue, and not a separately entered partnership between other parties and not a newly constituted partnership between some of the parties of the previous partnership, either using the same or a new trade name. 

In the matter at bar there is no evidence that the partnership 

which existed at the time this proceeding commenced, and certification was granted, continues to exist and intends to employ the 

beneficiary in the stated position. Rather, all evidence points to the 

fact that a number of successive partnerships have at times used 

the same trade name. At times, there have been gaps between the 

very use of this name. At times, the beneficiary has worked. for indivMuals, not for any certain partnership. Thus, it is apparent that 

the particular job opportunity certified does not continue to exist, 

in that the partnership that was then the intending employer is 

neither present nor intending to now offer the stated employment. 

250 
Interim Decision #2990 

In fact, given the contracts that have been submitted, it is not 

apparent that the present circumstance would qualify the petitioner as the beneficiary's employer as opposed to an independent contractor relationship existing between the parties. Accordingly, the 

certification is not valid for the employment now proposed. The 

appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

2.5,1