migrant alien who had failed to maintain his status. The respondent conceded deportability and that is not an issue in this appeal. The respondent seeks adjustment of status as a nonpreference immigrant. He claims to be exempt from the labor certification requirements of section 212(a)(14) of the Act as an "investor." See 8 C.F.R. 212.8(b)(4). Under this regulation, an alien who possesses the requisite. experience or training, and who establishes that he has invested or is actively in the process of investing at least $10,000 in a commercial or agricultural enterprise is not considered to be within the purview of section 212(a)(14) of the Act.1 The burden of proof to establish this claim rests upon the alien. The evidence must be unambiguous and any doubts will be resolved against the "investor" claimant. Matter of Shaw, Interim Decision 2525 (BIA July 2, 1976); Matter of Ahmad, Interim Decision 2316 (BIA 1974). The respondent has invested in a tire, battery, and accessory enterprise. He appears to be the sole proprietor and does business as Irving Park Tire Center. The respondent has not submitted an accountant's statement, nor, in fact, any statement, to establish the amount and nature of his investment. He has submitted numerous invoices, a copy of a lease, a copy of his business checking account statement and several canceled checks. The respondent contends that his investment in equipment and inventory and the amount of cash available to and being used by the business, equals at least $10,000. In computing the amount of the investment, the value of equipment purchased and inventory on hand at a given time is included. Matter of Ahmad, supra. The amount of the invoices for equipment purchased, including a station wagon which is claimed to be used in the respondent's business, totals $2,400. As of the time of the hearing on the motion to reopen, investment in inventory, as evidenced by invoices and delivery orders, totaled $2,328.44. The earliest of these particular purchases of, or orders for, inventory appears to have been made on August 14, 1975, and the latest on September 29, 1975. A reasonable amount of cash in a business bank account or similar fund which is used for the routine operations of the business may be included as part of the investment. Cf. Matter of Heitland, 14 I. & N. Dec. 563 (BIA 1974), affirmed Civ. No. 76-4141 (2 Cir. January 27, 1977). On July 3, 1975, the respondent transferred funds from his personal savings account, and other money, to a business checking account. The account for Irving Park Tire Center shows an opening balance of $7,500. As of August 1, 1975, this had been increased to $8,585.80. However, as of August 30, 1975, the balance stood at 18 C.F. R. 212.8(b)(4) was amended, effective October 7, 1976, to require an investment of $40,000. The amendment has prospective effect only; the present case is therefore considered under the regulation in effect at the time the application was made. $3,688.88. The amounts drawn on this account in that period, as evidenced by copies of the canceled checks, show that the money was used for payment of two months rent, salary for an employee, and payments to suppliers. However, it is not clear for what items these payments were made. One check in the amount of $1,725 was made payable to a person who apparently sold the respondent $1,175 worth of equipment, as evidenced by an invoice. The difference is not explained. On appeal, counsel for the respondent has submitted canceled checks representing payment for most of the invoices previously included in computing the amount of inventory. None of these checks had been shown on the checking account statement. Counsel's contention that these canceled checks represent an increase in the investment is erroneous and somewhat misleading. Presumably, the canceled checks represent a further reduction in the checking account. There is no evidence that funds sufficient to offset the checks were deposited in the account. The respondent has also submitted additional invoices and delivery orders. The respondent contends that these represent an additional investment of $693.15. However, one of these invoices representing inventory valued at $365.64 had previously been submitted and was included in the amount of the investment. In attempting to establish that the $10,000 minimum investment has been reached, care should be taken to avoid counting the same items twice. On the basis of this record, it is not possible to ascertain the total investment made by the respondent. It appears, however, that the investment has not exceeded more than the cash contribution to the business which the respondent has made. This amounts to no more than $8,600. The respondent also argues that, notwithstanding that he has not yet invested $10,000 in the business, he is "actively in the process of investing" and should be given a reasonable period of time in which to complete that investment. It appears from the record that the respondent has made a considerable investment in his business. He apparently has been making continuous purchases of inventory items. However, this by itself, does not show that he is "actively in the process of investing" $10,000. We have not, nor do we attempt here, to set forth a complete definition of the phrase "actively in the process of investing." However, an intention to commit funds, which is contingent upon approval of an application for adjustment of status, does not come within that phrase. Matter of Lui, Interim Decision 2354 (BIA 1975). Even where such an intention is evidenced by a note which in turn is contingent upon the granting of adjustment of status, the regulation will not be satisfied. Matter of Lee, Interim Decision 2415 (BIA 1975). Here, the respondent has at best a subjective intention to invest in the future. Although he may have invested funds in his business in the past, that does not establish that he will continue to do so in the future. Something further must be shown. For example, evidence establishing that an investor claimant is “actively in the process of investing," could consist of copies of contracts showing that he is legally committed to making certain expenditures, or similar items. The respondent has submitted nothing of this nature. Accordingly, we hold that he has not established that he is "actively in the process of investing" $10,000 in his business. The decision of the immigration judge was correct. The appeal will therefore be dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. MATTER OF GREAT WALL In Visa Petition Proceedings A-19784032 Decided by Acting Regional Commissioner March 16, 1977 (1) Petitioner sought to classify beneficiary for the issuance of an immigrant visa under section 203(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a store manager at a salary of $850.00 per month. The record reveals that at the time the petition was filed the petitioner did not and could not pay the proffered wage indicated in the job offer (Form MA 7-50B) nor did the petitioner establish on appeal that he could and would be able to pay the beneficiary the salary offered in the future. (2) A visa petition for sixth-preference classification will be denied where it is found that the beneficiary is not being paid the wages specified in the Job Offer for Alien Employment at the time the petition was filed because section 204(b) of the Act requires a determination that all the facts stated in the petition are true before the petition may be approved. ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Alwin S. M. Tan, Esquire 700 West Towers Building West Des Moines, Iowa 52065 This matter comes forward on appeal from the order of the District Director who on November 18, 1976, denied the petition for sixth preference to classify the beneficiary as a store manager. The District Director determined that the petitioner had failed to establish that he was financially able to pay the salary rate as stated in the job offer. The petitioner is an Oriental gift shop and food store. The beneficiary is a 25-year-old male, single, native of China, and citizen of Hong Kong, who last entered the United States as a nonimmigrant student. Review of his Statement of Qualifications submitted with the petition and signed December 19, 1975, reflects that his major field of study from July 1970 through November 1974 was industrial engineering without receipt of a degree. In January 1974 he began study at Simpson College and received a Bachelor of Arts Degree with an economics major on May 25, 1975. The petitioner in his job offer, which is dated December 16, 1975, stated he wished to hire the beneficiary as a store manager at the rate of $850.00 per month for a 40-48-hour week. In the job offer and the petition itself (filed with the Service on April 9, 1976) he stated that the annual income of the organization was $50,000.00, and that there were two to three other employees at the establishment. There is no question that the beneficiary meets the requirements as set forth in the certified job offer. The issue herein is whether the petitioner is qualified to proffer the employment. It is noted that the petitioner's original request for labor certification was denied on January 22, 1976, but the denial was reversed on March 24, 1976, on the basis of the petitioner's assurance that the wage offer would be increased. Further Service inquiry of the petitioner's business revealed that Great Wall, Inc., has issued $21,000.00 worth of common stock. Mr. Shau Chung Hu, who signed the petition, owns $10,000.00, the beneficiary owns $10,000.00 and the beneficiary's sister owns $1,600.00 worth of stock in the company. The beneficiary has also loaned the corporation $3,000.00 which admittedly was to cover operating expenses rather than for expansion of the business. The source of these funds was his mother. The beneficiary also admitted that although he had been employed by Great Wall, Inc., since September 1975, he had not received a salary as of September 14, 1976. It was further revealed that the two to three employees shown on the petitioner's job offer were, in fact, two part-time employees. The estimated inventory of Great Wall, Inc., as of September 14, 1976, was $10,000.00. At that time the following total sales were shown in the corporation's books: There were no figures for July and August, 1976. Monthly rent for the shop was $538.00, electricity $40.00-$100.00, and salary for the two part-time employees was $200.00-$300.00 per month. On appeal, the petitioner, through counsel, concedes that the shop will not realize a profit, and, in fact, will suffer a loss. However, the petitioner urges that a prospective view of the venture be taken since it is relatively new. An uncertified income statement was submitted on appeal covering the period June 1, 1975 to May 31, 1976, which reflects a net loss (based on fiscal year) of $2,110.37. The petitioner also stated for the record in a letter dated December 29, 1976, that the beneficiary is now receiving his wages and will continue to receive them; however, no |