dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

identif)ingdatadeietedto
prevert clearlyunwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
PUBUC COPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.W., Ms 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: SEP O 4 2012 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion, with a feeof $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directlywith theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbefiled
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
Thepetitioneris a Floridacorporationthatseeksto employthebeneficiaryasits manager.Accordingly,the
petitionerendeavorsto classifythe beneficiaryas an employment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section
203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 11.53(b)(1)(C),asa multinational
executiveor manager.
In supportof theFormI-140thepetitionersubmitteda statementdatedFebruary10,2011,whichcontained
informationpertainingtothepetitioner'sbusinessandthebeneficiary'sU.S.employment.Thepetitioneralso
providedsupportingevidencein theformof tax,bank,andcorporatedocuments.
Thedirectorreviewedthepetitioner'ssubmissionsanddeterminedthatthepetitiondid notwarrantapproval.
Thedirectorthereforeissuedarequestfor additionalevidencedatedMay 11,2011informingthepetitionerof
numerousevidentiarydeficienciesthatdirectlyaffectthepetitioner'seligibility. Thedirectordeterminedthat
therecordlackedevidenceshowingthat 1) thebeneficiarywasemployedabroadin a qualifyingcapacity;
2)thepetitionerhasaqualifyingrelationshipwith aqualifyingforeignemployer;and3)thepetitionerhasthe
abilitytopaythebeneficiary'sprofferedwage.
Thepetitioner'sresponseincludeda statementdatedJune1,2011whichwasaccompaniedby severalsales
invoicesissuedtothepetitioner'sclientele.
After reviewing the record, the director concludedthat the petitionerfailed to meet key eligibility
requirements,includingproviding evidenceof a qualifying relationshipbetweenthe petitionerand the
beneficiary'sforeignentityandevidenceof thepetitioner'sability to paythebeneficiary'sprofferedwage.
Thedirectorthereforeissueda decisiondatedSeptember28,2011denyingthepetitionbasedon thesetwo
adversefindings.
Thepetitionerappealsthedirector'sdenial,contendingthatthe decisionwasanabuseof discretion.In a
supplemental appellate brief, the petitioner addresseseach of the director's adverseconclusions.
After thoroughlyreviewingthe recordof proceeding,the AAO finds that the petitioner'sassertionsfail to
effectively addressandovercomethe denial.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1) PriorityWorkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
* * *
(C)CertainMultinationalExecutivesandManagers.- An alienis described
in this subparagraphif thealien,in the 3 yearsprecedingthetime of the
alien'sapplicationfor classificationandadmissioninto the United States
underthissubparagraph,hasbeenemployedfor at least1yearby a firm or
corporationor otherlegalentityor anaffiliateor subsidiarythereofandwho
Page3
seeksto entertheUnitedStatesin orderto continueto renderservicesto the
sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor affiliate thereofin a capacitythat is
managerialorexecutive.
Thelanguageof thestatuteis specificin limiting thisprovisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfora firm, corporationorotherlegalentity,oranaffiliateorsubsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingtotheUnitedStatestoworkforthesameentity,or itsaffiliateorsubsidiary.
A United Statesemployermay file a petitionon Form I-140 for classificationof an alien undersection
203(b)(1)(C)of theAct asa multinationalexecutiveor manager.No laborcertificationis requiredfor this
classification.Theprospectiveemployerin the UnitedStatesmustfurnisha job offer in the form of a
statementwhichindicatesthatthealienis to beemployedin theUnitedStatesin a managerialor executive
capacity.Suchastatementmustclearlydescribethedutiestobeperformedbythealien.
Thefirst issueto beaddressedin thisproceedingis whetherthepetitionerhasa qualifyingrelationshipwith
thebeneficiary'sforeignemployer.Toestablisha "qualifyingrelationship"undertheActandtheregulations,
thepetitionermustshowthatthebeneficiary'sforeignemployerandtheproposedU.S.employerarethesame
employer(i.e. a U.S. entity with a foreignoffice) or that the two entitiesare relatedas a "parentand
subsidiary"or as "affiliates." Seegenerally§203(b)(1)(C)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C);seealso
8C.F.R.§204.5(j)(2)(providingdefinitionsof theterms"affiliate"and"subsidiary").
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(j)(2)statesin pertinentpart:
Affiliatemeans:
(A) Oneof two subsidiariesbothof whichareownedandcontrolledby thesameparentor
individual;
(B) Oneof two legalentitiesownedandcontrolledby thesamegroupof individuals,each
individualowningandcontrollingapproximatelythesameshareor proportionof each
entity;
* * *
Multinational meansthat the qualifying entity, or its affiliate, or subsidiary,conducts
businessin twoormorecountries,oneof whichistheUnitedStates.
Subsidiarymeansa firm, corporation,or otherlegalentityof whicha parentowns,directlyor
indirectly,morethanhalf of theentityandcontrolstheentity;or owns,directlyor indirectly,
halfof theentityandcontrolstheentity;orowns,directlyor indirectly,50percentof a 50-50
joint ventureandhasequalcontrolandveto powerover the entity; or owns,directly or
indirectly,lessthanhalfof theentity,butin factcontrolstheentity.
Theregulationandcaselaw confirmthatownershipandcontrolarethe factorsthatmustbe examinedin
determiningwhethera qualifyingrelationshipexistsbetweenUnitedStatesandforeignentitiesfor purposes
of this visaclassification.Matter of ChurchScientologyInternational,19I&N Dec.593(Assoc.Comm'r
1988);seealsoMatterofSiemensMedicalSystems,Inc., 19I&N Dec.362(BIA 1986);MatterofHughes,18
I&N Dec.289(Comm.1982). In thecontextof thisvisapetition,ownershiprefersto thedirector indirect
Page4
legalrightof possessionof theassetsof anentitywith full powerandauthorityto control;controlmeansthe
director indirectlegalright andauthorityto directthe establishment,management,andoperationsof an
entity. Matterof ChurchScientologyInternational,19I&N Dec.at595.
The petitionerstatesthat it is a subsidiaryof which is anotherU.S. entity. Althoughthe
petitionerstatedthatthebeneficiarywasemployedabroadby thepetitionerneitherclaimed
nor hasprovidedany evidenceto establishthat it andthe beneficiary'semployerabroadsharesimilar
ownershipandcontrol.Despitethefactthatthepetitionerrepeatedlyrestatedtheregulatorydefinitionsof the
termssubsidiaryandaffiliate,thepetitionerseeminglyoverlooksthefactthattheaffiliateorparent-subsidiary
relationshipmust exist betweenthe petitioning entity and a foreign entity where the beneficiary was
employedprior to comingto the United Statesto be employedby the petitioneritself. Seesection
203(b)(1)(C)of theAct. In otherwords,thefactthatthepetitionerhasa parent-subsidiaryrelationshipwith
is entirelyirrelevantin thepresentmatter,asthisisnota foreignentitywherethebeneficiarywas
previouslyemployed. While the petitionerseeminglyfocuseson its businessassociationswith foreign
entitiesandprovidessalesinvoicesasevidenceof theclaimedbusinessties,thestatuteandregulationsare
clearin requiringa qualifyingrelationship,whichis basedon commonownershipandcontrolbetweenthe
U.S.petitionerandthebeneficiary'sforeignemployer.Thepetitionerneitherclaimednordoestheevidence
establishthateitheranaffiliateor a parent-subsidiaryrelationshipexistsbetweenthepetitioneranda foreign
entityfor whichthebeneficiarywaspreviouslyemployedabroad.
In reviewingthepetitioner'smainarguments,it appearsthatthepetitionerhasoverlookedthemultinational
componentthatis a prerequisitein orderfor a qualifyingrelationshipto exist. Thepetitionerhasfailedto
establishthatit sharesownershipandcontrolwith a foreignentitythatpreviouslyemployedthebeneficiary.
Thepetitionmustthereforebedeniedonthisinitialbasisof ineligibility.
Anotherissueaddressedin thedirector'sdecisionis whetherthepetitionerhasprovidedsufficientrelevant
supportingevidenceto establishthatit hastheabilityto paythebeneficiary'sprofferedwage.
Theregulationat 8C.F.R.§204.5(g)(2)statesthefollowing,inpertinentpart:
Any petition filed by or for an employment-basedimmigrant which requires an offer of
employmentmustbeaccompaniedbyevidencethattheprospectiveUnitedStatesemployerhas
theabilityto paytheprofferedwage.Thepetitionermustdemonstratethisabilityatthetime
theprioritydateis establishedandcontinuinguntil thebeneficiaryobtainslawfulpermanent
residence.Evidenceofthisabilityshallbeeitherintheformofcopiesofannualreports,federal
taxreturns,orauditedfinancialstatements.
Thepetitionwasfiled onMarch15,2011. Therefore,thepetitioner'staxreturnsfor 2008and2009,which
thepetitionerprovidedin supportof theFormI-140,arenotrelevant,astheyfail to determinethepetitioner's
financialstatusat thetime thepetitionwasfiled. AlthoughthepetitionerurgestheAAO to considerthe
totalityof thecircumstances,focusingonthefactthatthecompanyhasbeendoingbusinessfor longerthan
oneyear,nodocumentaryevidencehasbeensubmittedto establishhowthepetitionerplannedto compensate
the beneficiary'sprofferedwageof $780per week. Going on recordwithout supportingdocumentary
evidenceis notsufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof proofin theseproceedings.MatterofSoffici,
22I&N Dec.158,165(Comm.1998)(citingMatterof TreasureCraftof California,14I&N Dec.190(Reg.
Comm.1972)).
Page5
Lastly,theAAO agreeswith the director'sfindingthatthepetitionererroneouslyreliedon the American
Competitivenessin theTwenty-FirstCenturyAct (AC21)guidelines.'As thedirectorproperlypointedout,
AC21assuresapplicants,who filed for adjustmentof statuspursuantto section245andwhoseapplications
remainedunadjudicatedfor 180daysor more,thattheirapplicationswill remainvalid. However,theAAO
observesthatfor theportabilityprovisionsto apply,theunderlyingpetitionmustbe"valid"to beginwith if it
is to "remainvalid with respectto a newjob." Section204(j) of the Act, 8U.S.C.§ 1154(j)(emphasis
added).In this matter,theabovediscussionexpresslydeterminesthatthepetitionerhasfailedto establish
eligibility for thisvisaclassification.Moreover,merelyestablishingthatthebeneficiarychangedjobswithin
a similarjob classificationdoesnot establishthat the beneficiaryshouldbe accordedthe benefitsof the
provisionsstatedwithinAC21.
In summary,therecordstronglyindicatesthatthepetitionerisnoteligiblefor theimmigrationbenefitsought
hereinbecauseit hasnotformedaqualifyingrelationshipwiththebeneficiary'semployerabroadandbecause
it hasnotadequatelydocumentedits abilitytopaythebeneficiary'sprofferedwageatthetimeof filing.
Thepetitionwill thereforebedeniedfor theabovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasanindependentand
alternativebasisfor denial. In visa petitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefit
soughtremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnot
sustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.
In 2000,CongresspassedAmericanCompetitivenessin theTwenty-FirstCenturyAct (AC21),Pub.L No. 106-313,
114Stat.1251(Oct.17,2000).Section106(c)of AC21amendedsection204of theAct.The"portabilityprovision"at
section204(j) of theAct providesthat"an individualwhoseapplicationfor adjustmentof statuspursuantto section245has
beenfiled andremainedunadjudicatedfor 180daysor more shallremainvalid with respectto a newjob if the individual
changesjobs or employersif the new job is in the sameor a similar occupationalclassificationasthejob for which the
petitionwasfiled."CIShasnotissuedregulationsgoverningthisprovision.