USCIS Administrative Appeals finds petitioner to have met burden of proving lawful source of funds through submission of evidence to establish pattern of income consistent with accumulation. 

USCIS AAO Dec., #WAC 0025253507, December 30, 2004 

The Administrative Appeals Office granted a motion to reopen on a case involving a petitioner seeking classification as an alien entrepreneur pursuant to I.N.A. § 203(b)(5). In the initial denial of the petition, the Director of the California Service Center determined that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate the lawful source of her invested funds, and stated that she had not demonstrated sufficient income to account for the accumulation of $500,000.

Section 203(b)(5)(A) provides such classification to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the U.S. for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise in which the alien has invested capital of an amount specified in paragraph (C), and which will benefit the U.S. economy and create full-time employment for not less than 10 U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Since the investment was to be in a business located in a target employment area for which the required amount of capital has been adjusted downward, petitioner was required to invest capital of at least $500,000.

In addition to having the capital available, 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j) requires that the petitioner show that the capital was obtained through lawful means, and must prove such through evidence such as foreign business registration documents and tax returns. The petitioner cannot establish the lawful source of funds by merely submitting bank letters or deposit statements. The actual path of the funds must be shown to prove that the funds are the petitioner's own.

The petitioner had submitted tax returns from 1994 through 1999, and evidence of savings in excess of $500,000. While the tax returns proved how a portion of the capital was obtained, they did not account for the full $500,000. On appeal, the petitioner submitted her 1993 tax return and an employment letter confirming her employment from 1973 to 1999 and her subsequent retirement income. The AAO found that while petitioner did not demonstrate a particularly large income, she demonstrated a pattern of steady income and that 26 years of professional employment is not inconsistent with the accumulation of $500,000. The AAO held that the petitioner had met her burden and approved the petition.