dismissed EB-1C Case: Capital Investment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-R-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 25, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a "capital investment" business, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
president and chief executive officer (CEO) 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 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 revoked the approval of the petition concluding that the 
Petitioner did not establish, as required, that it had been doing business for at least one year as of 
August 26, 2013, the date it filed this petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and disputes the Director's findings, assyting I 
that it started doing business as defined in the regulations immediately after its incorporation in 
2012. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner did not overcome the grounds for revocation. 
Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 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(i)(3). 
Matter of P-R-, Inc. 
Section 205 of the Act states: "The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he 
deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under 
section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition." 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the Board 
of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence ofrecord 
at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial 
of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The 
decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the 
decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner 
in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) ( quoting Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
II. DOING BUSINESS 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that it was doing business for at 
least one year as of August 2013, when this petition was filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D). 
The term doing business is defined as the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods 
and/or services and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
The Petitioner is described in its business plan as "a boutique and comprehensive financial services 
firm specializing in wealth management and equity investment," offering services to both institutions 
and individuals. The Petitioner stated in its initial letter that, in its first year, it "has built up a local 
team and is in the process of establishing relationship[ s] with local government, partners, and 
associations." 
The Petitioner's initial evidence did not demonstrate that it had been engaged in the regular, 
systematic, and continuous provision of services since August 2012, as almost all documents 
submitted at the time of filing were dated in 2013. These documents included: 
• Profit and loss statement for the period January 2013 through June 2013, showing $2.6 million 
in "dividends income" and $73,399.70 in expenses 
• Evidence of wages paid to employees in the first two quarters of 2013 
• Copies of bank statements for the period January 18, 2013, to June 18, 2013; the earliest 
submitted bank statement showed that the Petitioner had a balance of $1975.01 as of January 
17,2013 
• Copies of various business agreements dated on or after February 8, 2013 
2 
Matter of P-R-, Inc. 
• Evidence that the Petitioner's parent company transferred $200,000 for the purchase of one 
million shares of the Petitioner's stock in September 2012, more than four months after it was 
incorporated in the United States 
• Copy of the Petitioner's initial lease agreement, which was valid beginning on September 1, 
2012. 
Although the Petitioner submitted a business plan dated June 1, 2013, it did not address the company's 
first year activities or results in any detail. Based on the foregoing, the initial evidence did not meet 
the Petitioner's burden to establish that it had been doing business for at least one year prior to filing 
the petition. Nevertheless, the petition was approved in October 2014. 
In December 2015, the Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval of the petition 
on the grounds that the Petitioner did not establish that it had been doing business for at least one year 
at the time the petition was filed. The Director provided the Petitioner with an opportunity to submit 
additional evidence in support of the petition in and in rebuttal to the revocation. 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner submitted a letter from its parent company's president, □ 
who stated that the U.S. subsidiary was established in part, to provide business support to the parent 
company, as well as to establish a private equity investment business in the United States. He noted 
that the foreign entity has been servicing clients in the U.S. market, but had to outsource or subcontract 
some of the services to third party companies until it decided to establish its own U.S. subsidiary.c=J 
D further explained that the Beneficiary remained in the United States for several months after the 
Petitioner was incorporated in order to meet with business partners, provide consulting services, and 
explore business opportunities for both the company and its clients, while being paid by the parent 
company. He indicated that the Petitioner "actually started signing service agreements and providing 
services to its mother Company and clients as soon as it was formed." 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from the Beneficiary, who stated that between May and November 
2012, she "met over 30 key strategic partners, associations and government organizations ... " visited 
and reviewed over 10 projects in the local area which helped her formulate the new company's 
direction and strategies, and sent monthly business reports to the parent company. She emphasized 
that "[c]apital management and consulting type of businesses need a lot of time on research due 
diligence and site visit," but noted that the Petitioner was able to secure agreements within a short time 
because of support from its parent company and existing clients. Finally, the Beneficiary stated that 
the Petitioner provided "regular services and support to both internal and external customers since July 
2012." 
In support of these claims, the Petitioner submitted: 
1. "Services Agreement" dated July 18, 2012, between ~-------------~ (buyer) and the Petitioner (as service provider) 
2. "Contract for Consulting Services ~~----~P" dated August 1, 2012, between the 
Petitioner (as "consulting company") and its parent company (client) 
3. "Services Agreement" dated August 27, 2012 between! !(buyer) and the 
Petitioner (service provider), with a commencement date of September 1, 2012 
3 
Matter of P-R-, Inc. 
All other evidence the Petitioner submitted in response to the NOIR post-dated the filing of the 
petition. 
The Director revoked the approval of the petition after reviewing the Petitioner's response, finding the 
evidence insufficient to overcome the concerns raised in the NOIR. The Director found that the 
petitioner "was not folly viable for the one year preceding the filing of this petition," and noted that it 
was still in the planning stages and relying on fonding from its parent company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner objects to the Director's decision, noting that "[n]owhere in the relevant 
regulatory standard does any requirement appear that a company be 'folly viable."' The Petitioner 
states that a new company may be engaged in activities that meet the definition of "doing business," 
while still receiving fonding from its parent company, and contends that this is the case here. 
The Petitioner also cites to a precedent decision where we determined that a petitioner may establish 
that it is "doing business" by demonstrating that it provides goods and/or services in a regular, 
systematic, and continuous manner to related companies within its multinational organization. See 
Matter of Leacheng, 26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015). The Petitioner reiterates its claim that the foreign 
entity established the U.S. subsidiary, in part, to support its parent company in the provision of services 
to its U.S.-based clients, and emphasizes that the Petitioner has provided these services to its parent 
from the time it was established. In support of this claim, the Petitioner submits copies of emails 
between the Beneficiary and the parent company, dated between May and August 2012. 
~' the Petitioner contends that its previously-submitted agreements with 
L__Jand I I demonstrate that it also provided services to third-party clients for at 
least one year prior to filing the petition. 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not established that it was doing business as defined in 
the regulations for at least one year prior to the filing of this petition in August 2013. 
We agree, however, in part, with the Petitioner that the Director's finding that the company was not 
"folly viable" at the time of filing was outside the scope of the definition of "doing business." The 
Petitioner asserts that the regulatory definition of "doing business" does not explicitly exclude 
companies that are at early stage of development, and therefore a new company can be "doing 
business" even if it is not yet generating revenue. The definition does, however, require the regular, 
systematic, and continuous provision of goods, services, or both. As such, the definition excludes 
even revenue-generating entities that only sporadically provide goods or services. 
Here, the fact remains that the Petitioner has not sufficiently documented its activities in 2012, 
particularly with respect to its claim that it was providing services to its foreign parent company. A 
distinction can be drawn between the facts here and those present in Matter of Leacheng. The 
petitioner in Leacheng was not a new subsidiary in its early stages of development. Rather, the 
petitioner was a company that provided marketing, sales, and shipping services to its affiliate in Hong 
Kong, and in tum, the Hong Kong affiliate paid a service fee to the petitioner. We found that the U.S. 
employer's business transactions need not involve an unaffiliated third party to satisfy the doing 
business requirement. Leacheng, 26 I&N Dec. at 534. We did not find that an entity at an early stage 
4 
Matter of P-R-, Inc. 
of development is "doing business" even when it is not engaged in any revenue-generating activity 
and/or providing any documented services. 
Unlike the petitioner in Leacheng, the Petitioner has not adequately documented its regular provision 
of services. While it appears that the Petitioner formalized a consulting services arrangement with its 
parent company on August 1, 2012, the submission of the agreement alone is insufficient to establish 
that the Petitioner actually provided the services from that date. Similarly, the two submitted "services 
agreements" with third party companies, without more, do not establish that the Petitioner began 
providing services on a regular, systematic, and continuous basis at least one year prior to the filing of 
the petition. Further, the record does not contain evidence of any agreements entered between August 
2012 and February 2013 in support of a claim that the Petitioner's activities were regular and 
continuous. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, such as records of expenses 
accrued with respect to each client or project, invoices it issued, research conducted pursuant to the 
consulting and service agreements, evidence of any fees collected for its services, or basic financial 
documents, such as its bank statements from the second half of 2012, its 2012 profit and loss 
statements, evidence of wages paid to any employees in 2012, and a copy of its federal income tax 
return, despite providing most of these documents for the first half of 2013. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that "newly-incorporated firms are naturally unlikely to have 
large books of business, voluminous rolls of clients, extensive files of accounts payable/receivable, 
and various other indicia of long-established companies." However, we find it reasonable to expect 
that the Petitioner would have something other than copies of agreements and emails between the 
Beneficiary and the foreign parent company from the relevant time period in 2012. The emails reflect 
that Beneficiary was engaged in business meetings with potential U.S. clients while in the United 
States on a B2 visitor visa (and remaining on the foreign entity's payroll), but are insufficient to 
establish that her activities rose to the level of providing regular, systematic, and continuous services 
on behalf of the Petitioner. 
We further note that the appeal includes a newl -submitted "exclusive investment a ency agreement" 
between the Petitioner and This agreement, 
dated June 6, 2012, identifies the Petitioner's address as.__ ___________ ____. However, 
the Petitioner has not established that it had a lease for that office location in June 2012. The 
Petitioner's first "office services agreement" with thd._ __ ..... ~ffice center located at that address was 
signed in July 2012 and the length of the agreement was from September 1, 2012 through August 31, 
2013. This unresolved ambiguity lessens the probative value of the agreement, and, as with the other 
agreements, it is not accompanied by evidence of any services the Petitioner performed after it was 
signed. 
The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter 
of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Here, despite claiming that it has been doing 
business since its inception, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to support this claim. 
Therefore, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner was doing business for one year prior to filing this 
petition. 
5 
Matter of P-R-, Inc. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The revocation of the previously approved petition is affirmed for the above stated reasons. The 
burden of proof to establish eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner in revocation 
proceedings. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Cheung, 12 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 
1968); and Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450, 452, n. l (BIA 1987). The Petitioner has not met that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-R-, Inc., ID# 3519485 (AAO June 25, 2019) 
6