dismissed EB-1C Case: Automotive Sales

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Y-1-, INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 21 , 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , an operator of a used-car dealership, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as president 
and general manager under the first-preference , immigrant classification for multinational executives 
and managers . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )(1 )(C). This classification allows an international business to permanently transfer a 
qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that, contrary 
to the Act and Department of Homeland Security regulations, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. The Director also found 
that the record did not establish a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director overlooked evidence of a parent-subsidiary 
relationship between the U.S. company and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The Petitioner also 
contends that the record establishes the Beneficiary's work abroad in an executive capacity. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. MULTINATIONAL EXECUTIVES AND MANAGERS 
An executive or manager who has worked abroad for at least one year may immigrate to the United 
States to continue to render executive or managerial services to the same employer, or its subsidiary 
or affiliate. Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act. If a beneficiary already works in the United States in 
nonimmigrant visa status for a petitioner or a related company, the petitioner must demonstrate that 
the worker 's year of foreign employment occurred during the three years before his or her U.S . 
entry. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B). 
A petitioner for a multinational executive or manager must submit a statement from an authorized 
company official demonstrating a beneficiary 's satisfaction of the statutory requirements of the 
requested classification. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A)-(C). The statement must also establish that 
the petitioner has been doing business for at least one year. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(D) . U.S. 
Matter ofY-1-, Inc. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may also request additional evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(3)(ii). 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
A U.S. pet1t10ner seeking to employ a multinational executive or manager must establish a 
qualifying relationship between itself and a beneficiary's foreign employer. A petitioner must 
demonstrate that it is the same entity that employed the beneficiary abroad, or the foreign employer's 
parent, subsidiary, or affiliate. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C). In determining whether a qualifying 
relationship exists, USCIS must examine the individuals or entities that own and control the U.S. and 
foreign employers. Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 595 (Comm'r 1988). 
Ownership means the direct or indirect legal right of possession of an entity's assets. Id. Control 
refers to the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct an entity's establishment, 
management, and operations. Id. 
Here, the Petitioner contends that it is the subsidiary of the company that employed the Beneficiary 
in Venezuela for about seven years before her nonimmigrant entry into the United States in July 
2014. A "subsidiary" includes "a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, 
directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
The Petitioner submitted copies of its articles of incorporation and a stock certificate. The 
documents indicate that the Venezuelan company acquired all of the Petitioner's stock upon its 
incorporation in 2013. A copy of the Petitioner's federal income tax return for 2015 also identifies 
the Venezuelan company as the Petitioner's parent. Thus, the record shows that the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer completely owns and controls the Petitioner, indicating a qualifying parent­
subsidiary relationship between the entities. 
The Director found the stock certificate insufficient to establish the Venezuelan company's 
ownership and control of the Petitioner. The Director stated that the record did not indicate the 
document's filing with government officials in Florida, the Petitioner's state of incorporation. 
Contrary to the Director's finding, however, Florida law does not require registration or submission 
of stock certificates with state officials. See Fla. Stat. § 607.0621 (describing how a Florida 
corporation issues stock certificates). The record also does not indicate that the Petitioner's articles 
of incorporation or by-laws require registration of its stock certificates with state officials. A 
preponderance of evidence therefore establishes the validity of the stock certificate. 
The record establishes the Beneficiary's foreign employer as the Petitioner's qualifying parent 
company. We will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary worked abroad in an executive capacity. The 
term "executive capacity" means employment that primarily involved: 1) directing the management 
of an organization or a major component or function of it; 2) establishing the goals and policies of 
the organization, component, or function; 3) exercising wide latitude in discretionary decision­
making; and 4) receiving only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, the 
2 
Matter ofY-1-, Inc. 
board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(44)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
The record shows the Beneficiary's entry into the United States in nonimmigrant visa status in July 
2014. During the prior seven years, the Petitioner contends that its parent company in Venezuela 
employed the Beneficiary as general manager. The record shows that the Venezuelan parent, which 
employs about 20 people, buys, sells and distributes chimo. 1 
A. Job Duties 
When considering the executive nature of a position, USCIS examines the position's job duties. See, 
e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) (requiring a petitioner to "clearly describe the duties to be performed by 
the alien"). A petitioner must demonstrate that a beneficiary performed the high-level 
responsibilities stated in the definition of the term "executive capacity." Champion World, Inc. v. 
INS, 940 F .2d 1533 (Table) (9th Cir. 1991 ). A petitioner must also prove that a beneficiary 
primarily engaged in executive duties, as opposed to operational activities. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
Here, in response to the Director's written request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
submitted a letter from its parent company describing the Beneficiary's job duties abroad. The 
foreign entity indicated that, as general manager, the Beneficiary spent the following percentages of 
time on the following duties: 
• 20% - Managing short- and long-term financial planning; 
• 15% - Identifying new business opportunities; 
• 10% - Representing the corporation "in all its activities;" 
• 10% - Administrating and managing business operations; 
• 10% - Establishing general guidelines that employees must follow and execute; 
• 10% - Managing the organization, supervising and controlling the work of others; 
• 10% - Determining demand for products and services in the industry, identifying potential 
customers, and developing pricing strategies; 
• 5% - Complying with the corporation's legal obligations; 
• 5% - "Others indispensable for the good functioning of the organization;" and 
• 5% - Presenting operating results. 
The description of the Beneficiary's activities abroad indicates her performance of some executive 
job duties. The description states, for example, that she managed the parent company and 
established guidelines for employees. But, contrary to the definition of the term "executive 
capacity," the job description does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary primarily performed 
executive duties. The description estimates that she spent only a combined 30% of her time 
establishing guidelines and managing the organization and its business operations. The Petitioner 
1 Chima appears to refer to a tobacco paste traditionally chewed in parts of Venezuela. See Dorothy Kamen-Kaye, 
"Chimo: An Unusual Form of Tobacco in Venezuela," Harvard Univ. Herbaria, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Jan. 20, 1971), 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4 l 762271 ?seq=l #page _scan _tab_ contents (last visited Oct. 28. 2019). 
3 
Matter ofY-1-, Inc. 
has not demonstrated the executive nature of her remaining duties, including managing financial 
planning, identifying new business opportunities, developing pricing strategies, and representing the 
company "in all its activities." 
Also, as the Director found, the description of the Beneficiary's former job duties is vague. The job 
description states that she managed the foreign organization and established guidelines. But the 
record does not describe how she managed the organization or what guidelines she established. The 
record lacks examples illustrating the Beneficiary's daily foreign duties. In addition, the record does 
not detail or explain the Beneficiary's duties of representing the corporation "in all its activities" or 
"[ o ]ther[] [tasks] indispensable for the good functioning of the organization." "Specifics are clearly 
an important indication of whether a [beneficiary]' s duties are primarily executive or managerial in 
nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations." 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990). Contrary to the request of the Director's RFE, the Petitioner did not provide a statement of 
the Beneficiary's foreign job duties describing "[ a ]11 specific daily duties." Thus, the description of 
the Beneficiary's foreign job duties is too vague to establish her employment abroad in an executive 
capacity. 
For the foregoing reasons, the description of the Beneficiary's job duties abroad does not 
demonstrate the claimed, executive nature of her foreign employment. We will next consider other 
factors affecting the executive nature of the Beneficiary's employment abroad. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
In determining the executive nature of a foreign position, USCIS also considers factors other than a 
position's job duties. USCIS reviews: the organizational structure of the foreign employer; the 
nature of its business; the existence of other employees who relieved a beneficiary from performing 
operational activities; and the duties of the beneficiary's subordinates. To demonstrate that a 
beneficiary will "direct the management" of an organization or a major component or function of it, 
a petitioner must show how the organization, component, or function is managed and establish that a 
beneficiary primarily focused on broad goals and policies, rather than on day-to-day operations. 
Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2). A beneficiary does not qualify as an 
executive under the statute simply because he or she has an executive title or "directs" the 
organization, component, or function as the owner or sole managerial employee. An executive must 
also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision-making," while "receiv[ing] only general 
supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
organization." Id. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart of the foreign entity as of the 
Beneficiary's U.S. entry in July 2014. The chart indicates that, as general manager, the Beneficiary 
directly supervised three positions: sales manager; administrative and finance manager; and human 
resources manager. The Petitioner also provided job duties of the subordinate positions. 
The job duties of the Beneficiary's subordinates undermine the claimed, executive nature of her 
foreign employment. The foreign company described the subordinates' job duties as including some 
that the Beneficiary purportedly performed. For example, the company stated that the administrative 
4 
Matter ofY-1-, Inc. 
and finance manager, like the Beneficiary, "[m]anage[d] the short and long term financial planning 
of the business." The company also stated that the sales manager, like the Beneficiary, 
"[d]etermine[d] the demand for products and services offered by the firm and its competitors and 
identif[ied] potential customers." The sales manager also purportedly "[ d]evelop[ ed] pricing 
strategies" like the Beneficiary. If the Beneficiary's subordinates performed some of the same duties 
as her, the record does not demonstrate her requisite focus on the company's broad goals and 
policies, rather than on its daily operations. Also, the redundant job duties cast doubt on the 
accuracy of the job descriptions provided by the foreign company. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
592, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record by independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
In addition, neither the foreign company's organizational chart nor its description of the 
Beneficiary's job duties indicates who directed her. An executive must receive only general 
supervision or direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2). The record does not 
discuss direction of the Beneficiary's activities in Venezuela. Thus, contrary to the definition of the 
term "executive capacity," the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's receipt of only 
general supervision in Venezuela. 
Based on the description of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties and the Venezuelan company's 
staffing and organizational structure, the record does not establish the claimed, executive nature of 
her employment abroad. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The record on appeal establishes a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer. The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary 
worked abroad for the parent company in an executive capacity. A petitioner bears the burden of 
establishing eligibility for a requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The 
Petitioner here has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of Y-1-, Inc., ID# 5753220 (AAO Nov. 21, 2019) 
5