dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.W., MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: Â(j6 ) 3 2012 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional
informationthat you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $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
within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
Thepetitioneris a Floridacorporationthat seeksto employthe beneficiaryas its presidentandgeneral
manager. Accordingly,the petitionerendeavorsto classify the beneficiaryas an employment-based
immigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (the Act), 8U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asamultinationalexecutiveormanager.
In supportof theFormI-140thepetitionersubmitteda statementdatedDecember22,2009,whichcontained
relevantinformationpertainingto the petitioner'seligibility, includingdescriptionsof the beneficiary's
positionswith theforeignandU.S.employersandan explanationof the basisfor thepetitioner'sclaimed
qualifyingrelationshipwith theforeignentity. Thepetitioneralsoprovidedsupportingevidencein theform
of IRS and corporatedocumentsas well as organizationalchartspertainingto the petitionerand the
beneficiary'sforeignemployer.
Thedirectorreviewedthepetitioner'ssubmissionsanddeterminedthatthepetitiondidnotwarrantapproval.
Thedirectorthereforeissueda requestfor additionalevidence(RFE),datedMay 28, 2010,informingthe
petitionerof variousevidentiarydeficiencies.The directorinstructedthe petitionerto provideevidence
pertainingto thebeneficiary'sproposedemploymentwith the U.S.entityaswell asthepetitioner'svarious
corporateandfinancialdocuments,whichwouldhelpto determinewhetherthepetitionerhasa qualifying
relationshipwith thebeneficiary'sforeignemployerandwhetherthe petitionerhastheability to pay the
beneficiary'sprofferedwage.
Thepetitionerprovideda response,whichincludeda statementdatedJune28,2010containinga list of the
beneficiary'sproposedresponsibilitiesandthecorrespondingpercentageof thebeneficiary'stimedevotedto
them.Thepetitioneralsoprovidedevidencepertainingtoits ownership.
After reviewingtherecord,the directorconcludedthat thepetitionerfailedto establishits eligibility and
thereforeissuedadecisiondatedDecember3,2010denyingthepetition. Specifically,thedirectorconcluded
that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence showing that (1) a qualifying relationship exists
betweenthe petitioner andthe claimed parententity; (2) the beneficiary's proposedemploymentwith the U.S.
entity would be in a qualifying managerialor executivecapacity; and (3) the petitioner hasthe ability to pay
thebeneficiary'sprofferedwageof $90,000annually.
Onappeal,counselsubmitsa brief statementin whichshedisputesthedirector'sconclusionwith regardto
theissuescitedin Nos. 1 and3 above. With regardto bankdocumentsshowingfundtransfers,counsel
assertsthatthedirectorfailedtoproperlyreviewthedocuments,whichshecontendsidentifiedtheoriginating
sourceof thefunds. With regardto thepetitioner'sability to pay,counselaskstheAAO to reviewthetax
returnssubmittedonappealasevidenceof thewagespaidto thebeneficiary.
Finally, with regardto the issue of managerialor executivecapacityof the beneficiary'sproposed
employment,the AAO notesthat counseldoesnot disputethe director'sadversefinding. Therefore,the
petitionereffectivelyconcedesthatit failedto establishthatthebeneficiarywouldbeemployedin theUnited
Statesin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.Thetworemainingissues-thepetitioner'sabilityto
payandits qualifyingrelationshipwith thebeneficiary'sforeignemployer-will be fully addressedin the
discussionbelow.
Page3
Section203(b)of theAct statesinpertinentpart:
(1) PriorityWorkers.- VisasshaHfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
* * *
(C)CertainMultinationalExecutivesandManagers.- An alienis described
in this subparagraphif the alien,in the 3 yearsprecedingthe time of the
alien'sapplicationfor classificationandadmissioninto the UnitedStates
underthissubparagraph,hasbeenemployedfor at least1yearby a firm or
corporationor otherlegalentityor anaffiliateor subsidiarythereofandwho
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,
andwhoarecomingtotheUnitedStatestoworkfor thesameentity,or itsaffiliateor subsidiary.
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.Sucha statementmustclearlydescribethedutiestobeperformedbythealien.
Thefirst issueto beaddressedin thisproceedingis whetherthepetitionerhasa qualifyingrelationshipwith
thebeneficiary'sforeignemployer.Toestablisha "qualifyingrelationship"undertheActandtheregulations,
the petitioner must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same
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.§ ll53(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;
* * *
Page4
Multinational meansthat the qualifying entity, or its affiliate, or subsidiary,conducts
businessin twoor morecountries,oneof whichistheUnitedStates.
Subsidiatymeansa firm,corporation,or otherlegalentityof whichaparentowns,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 ChurchScientologybztenzational,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
legalrightof possessionof theassetsof anentitywith full powerandauthorityto control;controlmeansthe
director indirectlegalright andauthorityto directthe establishment,management,andoperationsof an
entity. Matterof ChurchScientologyInternational,19I&N Dec.at 595.
Asgeneralevidenceof apetitioner'sclaimedqualifyingrelationship,stockcertificatesalonearenotsufficient
evidenceto determinewhethera stockholdermaintainsownershipandcontrolof a corporateentity. The
regulationsspecificallyallow thedirectorto requestadditionalevidencein appropriatecases.See8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(j)(3)(ii). As ownershipis a criticalelementof this visaclassification,thedirectormayreasonably
inquirebeyondthe issuanceof paperstockcertificatesinto the meansby which stockownershipwas
acquired. As requestedby the director,evidenceof this natureshouldincludedocumentationof monies,
property,or otherconsiderationfurnishedto the entity in exchangefor stock ownership. Additional
supportingevidencemayincludestockpurchaseagreements,subscriptionagreements,corporateby-laws,
minutes of relevant shareholdermeetings,or other legal documentsgoverning the acquisition of the
ownershipinterest.
In support of its claimed parent-subsidiary relationship between the beneficiary's foreign and proposed
employers,the petitioner initially submittedan undatedstock certificate identifying the beneficiary's foreign
employer as owner of all 100 authorizedsharesof the petitioner's stock. Later, in responseto the RFE, the
petitioner provided a numberof bank statementsfrom 2008 and2009,all containing evidenceof international
fundtransfersthatoriginatedfrom DeutscheBank.
TheAAO findsthatthesedocumentsarenotof probativevaluefor two reasons.First,thereis no evidence
thatanyof thefundtransferswerein anywayassociatedwith thedateof transferof thepetitioner'sstock,
particularlybecausethepetitionerprovidedanincompletestockcertificate,whichdoesnotcontainthedateof
the allegedstocktransfer. That beingsaid,the fact that the recordcontainsevidenceof multiple fund
transfersthroughouttwo differentcalendaryearsstronglyindicatesthatthefundswerenotintendedfor the
purposeof compensatingthepetitionerfor transferof its stock.
Second,contrarytocounsel'sclaimonappeal,noneof thebankstatementsspecificallyidentifythepartythat
orderedthetransferof funds. In otherwords,whilethestatementsidentifythebankinginstitutionwherethe
fund transferoriginated,noneidentify the actualtransferringparty. Goingon recordwithout supporting
documentaryevidenceis not sufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof proof in theseproceedings.
Page5
Matter of Soffici,22 I&N Dec. 158,165(Comm.1998)(citingMatterof TreasureCraftof California,14
I&N Dec.190(Reg.Comm.1972)).
In light of theabove,theAAO findsthatthepetitionerhasfailedto providesufficientevidenceto establish
thattheforeignentity,wherethebeneficiarywaspreviouslyemployed,is ownerof thepetitioner'sstockas
claimed.Onthebasisof thissecondadversefinding,theinstantpetitioncannotbeapproved.
Turningnow to the issueof the petitioner'sability to pay, 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(g)(2)statesthe following,in
pertinentpart:
Any petitionfiled by or for an employment-basedimmigrantwhich requiresan offer of
employmentmustbeaccompaniedbyevidencethattheprospectiveUnitedStatesemployerhas
theabilitytopaytheprofferedwage.Thepetitionermustdemonstratethisabilityat thetime
theprioritydateis establishedandcontinuinguntil thebeneficiaryobtainslawfulpermanent
residence.Evidenceofthisabilityshallbeeitherintheformof copiesofannualreports,federal
taxreturns,orauditedf'mancialstatements.
TherecordshowsthattheFormI-140in thepresentmatterwasfiledon February9, 2010,thusestablishing
thisprioritydateasthepointof referencein determiningwhetherthepetitionermeetstheregulatorycriteria
discussedabove.
Whilethepetitioneris notlegallyrequiredtopaythebeneficiarytheprofferedwageatthetimethepetitionis
filed, if thepetitionerwereto providedocumentaryevidenceshowingthatit employedthebeneficiaryat a
salaryequalto or greaterthantheprofferedwage,thisevidencewouldbeconsideredprimafacie proofof the
petitioner'sabilitytopaythebeneficiary'ssalary.TheAAO furthernotesthatanyevidenceof wagespaidtothe
beneficiarypriorto thedatethepetitionwasfiledwouldbedeemeddeficient,astheregulatorycriteriaclearly
indicatesthattheabilitytopaymustbeestablishedatthetimethepetitionisfiled,i.e.,theprioritydate.Id.
Whilethepetitionerhasprovidedits 2009taxreturn,whichindicatesthatthebeneficiarywaspaida salarythat
wasmuch greaterthanthe profferedwage,this documentis not relevantin thepresentmatter,asthepetitioner's
FormI-140wasfiled in 2010. As thepetitionerhasprovidedno otherdocumentationthatmeetstheabove
regulatorycriteria,the AAO findsthat the petitionerhasfailedto establishit meetsthe eligibility criteria
discussedat 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(g)(2)andthepetitionmustbedeniedon thisbasisaswell
The petition will be deniedfor the abovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredas an independentand
alternativebasisfor denial. In visa petitionproceedings,the burdenof provingeligibility for thebenefit
soughtremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnot
sustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.