dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-C-M- CO. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 16, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of business and technology consulting services, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as a managing principal under the first-preference, immigrant classification for 
multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition . The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate a required, qualifying relationship between it and the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence. It also asserts that the Director misinterpreted 
and disregarded prior proof of a qualifying relationship between the companies. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. MULTINATIONAL EXECUTIVES AND MANAGERS 
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 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. 
The Form 1-140, 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 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(j)(3). 
Matter of T-C-M- Co. 
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(i)(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 asserts that the same Belgian parent company wholly owns and controls both it 
and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The term "subsidiary" includes an 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 term "affiliate" includes "[ o ]ne of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and 
controlled by the same parent or individual." Id. Thus, the Petitioner claims that it and the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer are affiliates. 
The record indicates that, from September 2014 until the Beneficiary's nonimmigrant admission into 
the United States in October 2017, she worked for a Swiss company. In a letter accompanying the 
petition, the Petitioner asserted that, since before 2010, a Belgian parent company has wholly owned 
and controlled the Petitioner and the Swiss company. The Petitioner's "blanket" L-1 petition of 
record also lists the Belgian firm as the companies' parent. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(2)(ii) (allowing 
certain petitioners to obtain blanket petitions for L-1 nonimmigrant visa purposes as proof of the 
petitioners' qualifying relationships with their parents, branches, subsidiaries, and affiliates). 
The Petitioner, however, also submitted a copy of a 2017 news release. The release stated that a 
private U.S. investment firm acquired from a U.S. publicly traded company about 60% of a group of 
companies that included the Petitioner, the Swiss firm, and other related entities. Documentation 
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) indicates that the publicly traded 
company acquired the group in 2010. See SEC, "EDGAR/Company Filings," https://www.sec.gov/ 
(last visited Aug. 23, 2019). In exhibits to annual reports for 2010 through 2016, the publicly traded 
company identified itself as the parent of the Petitioner and the Swiss firm. Id. News releases found 
online also indicate that the publicly traded company acquired the Petitioner and the Swiss company 
in 2010. These releases also identify the prior, majority shareholder of the group of companies as a 
U.S. private equity firm, not the Belgian firm. These reports and documents cast doubt on the 
identity of the claimed parent company of the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. See 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of 
record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
In response to the Director's written request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner appeared 
to concede that the Belgian company is not the parent of the Petitioner and the Swiss company. In 
an updated letter, the Petitioner stated that an exempted limited partnership (ELP) from the Cayman 
Islands wholly owns the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's Swiss employer. The Petitioner also 
2 
Matter of T-C-M- Co. 
submitted a chart indicating that the ELP wholly owns companies that, in tum, wholly own the 
Petitioner and the Swiss company. 1 
However, the record lacks independent, objective evidence of the chains of ownership between the 
ELP, and the Petitioner and the Swiss company. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 (requiring a 
petitioner to resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence). The Petitioner submitted 
the chart and the updated statement from a company official as proof of the claimed qualifying 
relationship. But these documents do not constitute independent, objective evidence. The record 
lacks copies of sales agreements, stock certificates, meeting minutes, or other legal documentation 
indicating the ownership of the entities in the chains between the ELP, and the Petitioner and the 
Swiss company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that USCIS' approval of its blanket L-1 petition in 2014 and the 
Beneficiary's resulting receipt of an L-lA visa from the U.S. Department of State demonstrate the 
affiliation between it and the Swiss company. As previously indicated, however, the blanket L 
petition identifies the parent company of the Petitioner and the Swiss firm as the Belgian company. 
Evidence of record indicates that the Belgian company is not the parent of the Petitioner and the 
Swiss firm. The Petitioner itself now asserts that the Cayrnanian ELP owns and controls it and the 
Swiss company. The Petitioner's blanket L-1 petition and the Beneficiary's L- lA visa therefore do 
not support the claimed identity of the parent company. 2 The inconsistencies present in the record, 
coupled with the lack of documentary evidence preclude a finding that there is a qualifying 
relationship between the foreign employer and the U.S. petitioner. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record on appeal does not establish a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer. A petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for a 
requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the Petitioner did not meet that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-C-M- Co., ID# 5917113 (AAO Sept. 16, 2019) 
1 As previously indicated, ownership means the direct or indirect legal right of possession of an entity's assets. Matter of 
Church Scientology Int'/, 19 T&N Dec. at 595. Under Caymanian law, the rights or property of an ELP "shall be held or 
deemed to be held by the general partner." Exempted Limited Partnership Law of the Cayman Islands (2018 Revision)§ 
16(1), http://www.gov.ky/portal/ pls/portal/docs/1/12620500.PDF (last visited Aug. 28, 2019). Thus, contrary to the 
Petitioner's assertion, the record does not establish that the ELP, as opposed to its general partner, owns the Petitioner 
and the Swiss company. The auditor's notes to the ELP's consolidated financial statements for 2017 and 2018 identify 
the ELP's general partner as a limited liability company of unknown nationality. The auditor's notes also indicate that 
the U.S. investment firm that bought 60% of the group of companies in 2010 also owns and controls a majority of the 
ELP's general partner. 
2 If the blanket L-1 petition misstates the Petitioner's parent company, the Petitioner must amend the petition. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(C) (requiring a petitioner to amend a petition "to reflect changes in approved relationships"). 
3