dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 26, 2024 In Re: 29426035 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a function manager under the first 
preference immigrant classification for multinational executives of managers. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that (1) it had been doing business in the United States for at least one year at the time of 
filing; (2) the Beneficiary's foreign employer continued to do business abroad; (3) it would employ 
the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity; and (4) it has the ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered 
wage. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b)( 1 )( C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa 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 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. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, 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 coming 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. § 204.5(i)(3). In addition, a petition for a 
multinational manager or executive must be accompanied by evidence that the prospective United 
States employer has the ability to pay the proffered wage from the time the petition is filed and 
continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted, the Director denied the petition on multiple independent and alternative grounds. For the 
reasons provided below, the Petitioner has not established its eligibility for the requested immigrant 
classification. 
A. Doing Business 
To establish eligibility for this classification, the evidence must demonstrate that the prospective 
United States employer has been doing business for at least one year at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D). Doing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods 
and/or services and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(2). 
The Petitioner filed the Form 1-140 on January 28, 2022, and therefore must demonstrate that it had 
been doing business as defined in the regulations since January 2021. On the Form 1-140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner stated that was established on November 3, 2019 and 
operates a "services" business with no employees. The Petitioner indicated "not available" where 
asked to provide the company's gross and net annual income. 
In a supporting letter, the Petitioner stated that the compan] was originally established in 2019 for the 
purpose of purchasing and operating al franchise unit. The Petitioner explained 
that the restrictions imposed on the food service industry during the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in 
the original project being nonviable. The Petitioner farther stated: 
[The U.S. company's] activities now focus on supporting services to [its foreign parent 
company]. At the same time, [ the Petitioner] working in partnership with [ the foreign 
entity] is earning name recognition and trust with our foreign clients. . . . [The 
Petitioner] remains an active and viable business. 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included copies of its articles of organization and operating agreement 
executed in 2019, a statement of information filed with the California Secretary of State in July 2020, 
and evidence that the company maintained an "active" status in California as of January 2022. 
The Petitioner also provided a "premiere office license agreement" with a one-year initial term (July 
2020 through July 2021 ), along with photographs of the office and evidence of monthly payments 
made to the licensor through December 2021. The initial evidence documented the Petitioner's receipt 
of a $40,000 wire transfer from its parent company on August 30, 2021, and demonstrated that the 
company had a checking account balance of$42,500 as of July 10, 2020. In support of its claim that 
it is providing "supporting services" to its parent company, the Petitioner provided a copy of an 
internal email dated January 21, 2022, which discusses a possible 'joint project" between the two 
companies. Finally, the Petitioner submitted a copy of its business plan prepared in July 2020, which 
detailed the company's original plan to own and operate al !franchise. 
2 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) advising the Petitioner that the initial evidence did 
not establish it had been doing business, as defined in the regulations, for at least one year at the time 
it filed the petition. The Director requested that the Petitioner provide evidence that: the company 
remained in good standing and possesses any required licenses to do business; that it had acquired and 
retained the necessary facilities, equipment, and staff to do business; and that it had been engaged in 
the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services. The Director noted that 
evidence of the company's business activities should include documentation such as invoices and sales 
contracts. 
In a cover letter accompanying the Petitioner's response, counsel asked that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) "take into ... account extraordinary situation in Beneficiary's native 
country of Russia and economic impact of Russian invasion and international sanctions on world's 
economy." The Petitioner's submission did not include evidence that was responsive to the Director's 
request that it document its business activities for the year preceding the filing of the petition. 
The Petitioner's RFE response included a letter dated September 4, 2020, which had been submitted 
to USCIS in support of a prior Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, filed on the 
Beneficiary's behalf The letter stated that the Petitioner, at that time, was "involved in management, 
consulting, and general business," and indicated that the company was "still in the process of franchise 
negotiations" for thel Ifranchise. 
The Director reviewed the Petitioner's evidence and acknowledged that the company had been 
registered in 2019, leased an office in 2020, and maintained an "active" corporate status at the time of 
filing. However, the Director emphasized that the record lacked evidence that the Petitioner had been 
engaged in the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services for at least one 
year when it filed the petition in January 2022. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a printout from the website of the California Secretary of State 
showing that the company's corporate status remains active as of August 2023. However, it does not 
directly address or contest the Director's determination. Its brief contains the following statement: 
The ongoing Russian aggression against Ukraine (started on February 24, 2022) caused 
serious limitations and restrictions on Russian business and banking operations. This 
makes it impossible for foreign affiliate to transfer currency to the USA. The current 
situation was not predictable and highly unusual. The USCIS should exercise its 
favorable discretion in considering this matter. 
The Petitioner does not explain how the referenced financial restrictions would prevent it from 
demonstrating that it was doing business on a regular, systematic, and continuous basis in the United 
States between January 2021 and January 2022. We cannot grant the Petitioner's request to waive this 
regulatory requirement. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that its plan to open a food service franchise in 2020 during 
the height of the Covid-19 pandemic was not viable, and that it has instead been providing "supporting 
services" to its parent company. A petitioner may establish that it is "doing business" by 
demonstrating that it is providing goods and/or services in a regular, systematic, and continuous 
3 
manner to related companies within its multinational organization. Matter ofLeacheng, 26 I&N Dec. 
532 (AAO 2015). However, unlike the petitioner in Matter ofLeacheng, the Petitioner in this matter 
has neither defined the specific services it provides nor submitted documentation to corroborate that 
it is carrying out the broadly described "supporting" services it claims to provide to its foreign parent 
company. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Here, the Petitioner submitted a copy of an email which suggested a possible upcoming project 
between the U.S. and foreign companies, but it was dated one week prior to the filing of the petition. 
Further, while the record contains evidence that the foreign entity transferred $40,000 to the Petitioner 
in August 2021, the Petitioner has neither claimed nor documented that these monies were transferred 
to compensate the U.S. company for the provision of services or otherwise relate to activities that fall 
within the definition of doing business at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2). The record reflects that the Petitioner 
previously indicated to USCIS, in September 2020, that it was engaged in "management, consulting 
and general business," but the record is similarly lacking in any explanation or documentation of what 
these activities may have entailed. The Petitioner has not documented any business transactions or 
provided copies of its tax returns for 2020 or 2021 in support of its claim that it has been active and 
doing business as that term is defined in the regulations. 
To meet the eligibility requirements for this classification, the Petitioner must establish that it was 
doing business as defined in the regulations for at least one year at the time of filing the Form 1-140. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). Here, for the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish 
that it met this requirement. 
B. Reserved Issues 
As discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that it had been doing business for at least one 
year at the time it filed this petition. As this issue is dispositive of the appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding its ability to pay the proffered wage, the 
Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment in a managerial capacity, and the foreign entity's ongoing 
business operations. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not 
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 
see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that it had been doing business for at least one year when it filed 
the petition. Therefore, the record does not establish eligibility for the requested classification, and 
the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4