dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

MATTER OF H- USA, LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. l l, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, established as an export, wholesale, and construction business, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its general manager under the first preference immigrant classification for 
multinational executives or managers. · See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(6)(1 )(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1 I 53(b)(I )(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer 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, concluding that the Petitioner was 
administratively dissolved and therefore cannot show that it has a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer and is doing business. The Director also concluded that the record 
does not establish, as required, that: (I) the Beneficiary's proposed position would be in a 
managerial or executive capacity; (2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a manageriaJ or 
executive capacity for the required one-year time period; (3) the Petitioner had the ability to pay the 
Beneficiary's proffered wage at the time of filing; and (5) the Beneficiary's foreign employer was 
doing and continues to do business. The Director issued a separate finding of willful 
misrepresentation based on derogatory evidence that is outside this record. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes several of the Director's findings, asserting that it met all statutory 
eligibility requirements and that the finding of materi~l misrepresentation was not warranted. 
Upon de novo review, we find that the Petitioner did not address, and therefore did not overcome, 
the Director's finding regarding its administrative.dissolution. As such, the Petitioner has not 
established that-it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer and was 
doing business. We will dismiss the appeal for these reasons. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or 
I 
executive capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or 
executive services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b)(l )(C) of the 
Act. 
Maller of H- USA. LLC 
The Form [-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is comil)g to work in the United States for the 
same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and that the prospective U.S. 
employer has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(j)(3). 
II. INACTIVE LEGAL ENTITY 
The Director determined that there was no qualifying business relationship between the Petitioner 
and the Beneficiary's foreign employer based on the inactive and dissolved status of the petitioning 
legal entity. The Director's decision discussed information found on the Florida Secretary of State 
website, which continues to show that the Petitioner's ~orporate status in Florida has been "Inactive" 
since September 22, 2017, and that the entity ~as been administratively dissolved. The Director 
observed that the Petitioner was notified of this derogatory information in a previously issued notice 
of intent to deny (NO[D). Although the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner responded to the 
NOID, he found that the Petitioner did not address or rectify its inactive entity status. The Director 
'also found that the inactive and dissolved status and the lack of filed income tax returns show that 
the Petitioner has not been actively doing business for one year prior to filing the petition. 
In order to establish a "qualifying relationsnip," the Petitioner must show. that the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (a U.S. entity with a 
foreign office) or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See § 203(b)(l)(C) of the 
Act; see al,~o 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(j)(2) (providing definitions of the terms "at1iliate" and "subsidiary"). 
If an org~nization is not an active legal entity, it cannot establish that it has a qualifying relationship 
with the beneficiary's foreign employer. Further, to file a petition to classify the Beneficiary for this 
firs_t preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers, the Petitioner 
must provide evidence that it has been doing business _for at least one year. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(j)(3)(i)(D). 
The Petitioner was informed of the derogatory information regarding its inactive entity status in a 
NOID and later in the denial decision. However, on appeal, the Petitioner does not submit additional 
evidence or point out factual or legal errors in the Director's decision on this ground of ineligibility. 
In the absence of additional evidence or argument, we see rio reason to disturb the. Director's 
decision. When a petitioner fails to offer an argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned. 
Sepulveda v. U.S. All 'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885, at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims 
abandoned when not raised on appeal to the AAO)." 
The Petitioner's inability to show that it is an active legal entity precludes a finding that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. Further, the Petitioner has not 
established that it has been doing business for at least one year prior to filing the petition. As the 
2 
Maller of H- USA, LLC 
Petitioner has not me_t these threshold requirements, it is not eligible to file an immigrant visa 
petition on the Beneficiary's behalf. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that it is a legal entity 
capable of having a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer and making a 
bona fide job offer. We further find that the Petitioner has not established that it is doing business. 
As these elements are fundamental prerequisites to establishing eligibility and the Petitioner has not 
met these threshold requirements, we reserve and will not address the remaining grounds that the 
Director cited in the denial decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller of H- USA, LLC, ID# 1947885 (AAO Jan. 11, 2019) 
3