dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10856909 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 5, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Manager or Executive 
The Petitioner seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as an executive manager under the first­
preference, immigrant classification for multinational managers and executives. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(C). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, and we dismissed the business's 
following appeal. See In Re: 6500373 (AAO Jan. 30, 2020) . We agreed with the Director that the 
Petitioner did not establish that: 1) it had been "doing business" for at least one year before the 
petition's filing; 2) it has the ability to pay the position's proffered wage; 3) it would employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity; and 4) the Beneficiary worked abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity . 
The matter is now before us on the Petitioner's motion to reopen. The Petitioner bears the burden of 
establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. See section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon 
review, we will dismiss the motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state new facts, supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(2) . 
We may grant a motion that meets these criteria and establishes eligibility for the requested benefit. 
II. DOING BUSINESS 
A petitioner for a multinational manager or executive must demonstrate that it "has been doing 
business for at least one year." 8 C.F.R . § 204 .5(j)(3)(i)(D). The term "doing business" means "the 
regular , systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services by a firm , corporation , or other 
entity and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
A petitioner must demonstrate eligibility at the time of a petition 's filing . 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) . The 
Petitioner filed this petition on February 28, 2017. The Petitioner must therefore demonstrate that it 
has been doing business since at least February 28, 2016 . 
On motion, the Petitioner submits copies of invoices it issued in 2019. The 2019 invoices do not 
establish the Petitioner's provision of goods or services since at least February 28, 2016. Thus, 
contrary to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D), the motion's evidence does not establish that the Petitioner 
has been doing business since at least one year before the petition's filing. We will therefore dismiss 
this portion of the Petitioner's motion. 
III. ABILITY TO PAY THE PROFFERED WAGE 
A petitioner must demonstrate its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage of an offered position, 
from a petition's priority date until a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(g)(2). The Form I-140 states the proffered wage of the offered position of executive manager 
as $780 a week, or $40,560 a year. The petition's priority date is February 28, 2017, the date of its 
filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d) (explaining how to determine a petition's priority date). 
In our appellate decision, we found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate its ability to pay the 
proffered wage at the time of the petition's priority date of February 28, 2017. The 2019 invoices -
the only evidence the motion contains - do not establish the Petitioner's ability to pay at that time. We 
will therefore also dismiss this portion of the motion. 
The record also lacks regulatory required evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage 
in 2018 and 2019. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) (requiring evidence of continuing ability to pay a 
proffered wage to include annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements). Thus, 
in any future filings in this matter, the Petitioner must submit copies of annual reports, federal tax 
returns, or audited financial statements for 2018, 2019, and, if available, 2020. The Petitioner may 
also submit additional evidence of ability to pay in those years, including: proof of any wages it paid 
to the Beneficiary; materials supporting the factors stated in Matter of Sonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612, 
614-15 (Reg'l Comm'r 1967); and evidence of any assets of its sole proprietor. See Ubeda v. Palmer, 
539 F. Supp. 647,650 (N.D. Ill. 1982), ajfd, 703 F.2d 571 (7th Cir. 1983) (finding that the immigration 
service properly considered an owner's personal income, assets, and liabilities when determining the 
ability of a sole proprietorship to pay a proffered wage). 
IV. THE NATURE OF THE BENEFICIARY'S FOREIGN AND PROPOSED EMPLOYMENT 
A petitioner for a multinational manager or executive must demonstrate that a beneficiary worked 
abroad, and would work in the United States, in a managerial or executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B), (5). On motion, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary worked for its affiliate 
in Brazil, and would work for the Petitioner in the United States, in a managerial capacity. 
The term "managerial capacity" means employment "primarily" involving: 1) managing an 
organization or a department, subdivision, function, or component of it; 2) supervising and controlling 
the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or managing an essential 
function within the organization, department, or subdivision; 3) having authority to hire and fire or to 
recommend those and other personnel actions, or, if not supervising others, functioning at a senior 
level within the organizational hierarchy or regarding the managed function; and 4) exercising 
discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has 
authority. Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
2 
The Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed employment meets all 
four elements of the definition of "managerial capacity." The Petitioner must also establish that the 
Beneficiary would primarily perform managerial duties, as opposed to operational tasks. See Family 
Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
The only evidence submitted on motion by the Petitioner, the 2019 invoices, do not demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's work abroad, or proposed U.S. employment, in a managerial capacity. The evidence 
does not include more detailed descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed job duties. The 
evidence also does not establish the Petitioner's possession of sufficient resources to support the 
Beneficiary in a managerial capacity at the time of the petition's filing. We will therefore also dismiss 
this portion of the motion. 
Also, in a filing with state officials in 2020, the Petitioner listed its principal place of business as an 
apartment in Florida. See Fla. Dep't of State, Div. of Corps., "Search Records," https:// 
dos.myflorida.com/sunbiz/search/ (last visited Jan. 4, 2021). The Form 1-140 and the Petitioner's 
organizational chart indicate the business's employment of five people. The Petitioner's apparent 
operation from a residential apartment casts additional doubt on the business's possession of sufficient 
resources to relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational duties. Thus, in any future filings in 
this matter, the Petitioner must submit evidence that its workplace can accommodate sufficient staffing 
and resources to support the Beneficiary in the claimed managerial capacity. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l) (requiring a petitioner to "continue to be eligible [for a requested benefit] through 
adjudication"). 
V. CONCLUSION 
The evidence on motion does not establish that the Petitioner has been doing business since at least 
one year before the petition's filing or that the business can pay the proffered wage of the offered 
position. The record also does not demonstrate the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed employment 
in the claimed managerial capacity. We will therefore affirm our dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3