ndon, 679 F.2d 113, 116 (7th Cir.1982);  Singh v. Attorney General, 510 F.Supp. 351, 356-57 (D.D.C.1980), aff'd mem., 672 F.2d 894 (D.C.Cir.1981).


21
We must now decide whether the financial viability of the employer to pay the wage stated in the certification application is within the province of the INS or the DOL to determine.


22
According to the Act, the DOL must find that the alien's performance of the job in question will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed domestic workers before it issues the section 212(a)(14) certification.  The DOL requires that the prospective employer's application clearly show that the alien will be paid a wage equal to or exceeding the prevailing wage, 20 C.F.R. Sec. 656.20(c)(2);  that the wage is guaranteed rather than contingent, see id. Sec. 656.20(c)(3);  and, most importantly, that the employer is able to pay the wage, id. Sec. 656.20(c)(1).  The DOL, however, does not always investigate the information on the application.  In most cases, unless the employer firm is new or there is some other reason to question its statements, the DOL takes the information at face value in determining whether to issue the certification.


23
In contrast, the INS has taken the position that the term "desiring and intending to employ" in section 204(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1154(a), which speaks of who may file a petition for visa preference status, contemplates the INS evaluating the financial ability of the petitioning employer to meet the wage requirements of the certified job offer.  Matter of Great Wall, 16 I. & N. Dec. 142, 145 (Regional Comm'r 1977);  Matter of Sonegawa, 12 I. & N. Dec. 612, 614 (Regional Comm'r 1967).


24
In Ubeda v. Palmer, 539 F.Supp. 647, 649-50 (N.D.Ill.1982), aff'd mem., 703 F.2d 571 (7th Cir.1983), the court concluded that the determination of a petitioning employer's financial viability is one to be made solely by the INS and not the Secretary of Labor.  In view of the agencies' current practice, which is given wei