Anderson's Jewelry Sateesh Thukaram, Beneficiary v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service

83 F.3d 426 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. ANDERSON'S JEWELRY; Sateesh Thukaram, beneficiary, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-35142. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 11, 1996. * Decided April 17, 1996. Before: WRIGHT, PREGERSON, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Petitioner-Appellant Anderson's Jewelry appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent-Appellee Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm. 3 Anderson has not provided sufficient evidence of his ability to pay Thukaram, as of January 22, 1988, the proffered wage. Immigration regulations describe the types of evidence a petitioner must provide to demonstrate that he has the ability to pay the proffered wage as follows: 4 Evidence of this ability [to pay the proffered wage] shall be…