dismissed EB-1C Case: Cargo Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-C-, INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 11,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a cargo transportation company, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a 
manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
managers. See Immigration and Natiopality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record did 
not establish that the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship, with the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred by making a "totally incorrect" finding regarding the Petitioner's 
ongoing qualifying relationship with the foreign company. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers.- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(C) Certain multinational executives and managers. An alieri is described in this 
subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of the alien's 
application for classification and admission into the United States under this 
subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or 
other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and the alien seeks to 
enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the same 
Matter ofT-C-. Inc. 
employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial 
or executive. 
A U.S. employer may file Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a beneficiary 
under section 203(b )(I )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. A labor certification is 
not required for this classification. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3) states: 
(3) Initial evidence-
(i) Required evidence. A petition for a multinational executive or manager 
must be accompanied by a statement from an authorized official of the 
petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that: 
(A) If the alien is outside the United States, in the three years immediately 
preceding the filing of the petition the alien has been employed outside 
the United States for at 'least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity by a firm or corporation, or other legal entity, or by an affiliate 
or subsidiary of such a finn or corporation or other legal entity; or 
(B) If the alien is already in the United States working for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation, or other 
legal entity by which the alien was employed overseas, in the three years 
preceding entry as a nonimmigrant, the alien was employed by the entity 
abroad for at lea~t one year in a managerial or executive capacity; 
(C) The prospective employer in the United States is the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by 
which tht; alien was employed overseas; and 
(D) The prospective United States employer has been doing business for at 
least one year. 
I 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it has an 
ongoing qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, a 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 foreign office) or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of T-C-, Inc. 
See generally section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C). The pertinent 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) define the relevant terms, discussed below. 
A. Affiliate Relationship 
We begin with a threshold issue before we address the specific grounds that the Director stated in the 
denial notice. The Petitioner has not adequately established its claimed affiliation with 
Generally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) defines an "affiliate" as: 
(A) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same 
parent or individual; [or] 
(B) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of 
individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the same 
share or proportion of each entity. 
The Petitioner filed Form I-140 on March 2, 2015. The Petitioner identified the Beneficiary's 
former employer abroad as A photocopied share certificate indicates that 
owns 300 shares of the petitioning company. The translation of an amended 
"Social Contract for Partnership" indicates that owns 90 percent of the foreign company. 
There is no legible date on the foreign-language document, but it must date from before June 4, 2013, 
when the translation was prepared. 
This partnership agreement indicates that owns a controlling interest in the foreign 
company. The Petitioner, however, has not provided complete information about the ownership of the 
petitioning U.S. entity. The photocopied share certificate names as owner of 300 shares, 
but the record lacks supporting evidence that would lend context to this document. The Petitioner has 
not submitted materials such as a stock ledger to show the total number of shares issued and to confirm 
that certificate, issued in 2004, remains valid and accurate. The Petitioner stated that 
the petition included a copy of its articles of incorporation, but that document is not in the record. 
Instead, the Petitioner submitted a copy of an amendment to those articles. The amendment contains no 
information about the company's ownership. By itself, the share certificate does not establish that 
still owns any shares in the petitioning company, or that he ever held a controlling interest. 
Without this crucial information, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) cannot properly 
approve 
the petition. 
B. Foreign Entity Must Be Doing Business 
The regulatory definition of "multinational" at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) requires that "the qualifying 
entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary, conducts business in two or more countries, one of which is the 
United States." The present-tense verb "conducts" indicates that the entity or entities must be 
actively doing business at the time of filing the petition. Doing business means the regular, 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-C-, Inc. 
systematic, and continuous provision of goods or services by a firm, corporation, or other entity and 
does not include the mere presence of an agent or office. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
Taken together, the above regulations indicate that the Petitioner and a foreign branch, affiliate, 
parent, or subsidiary must be actively doing business in order to continue to qualify as a 
multinational organization. The entities must continue to meet this and other eligibility requirements 
throughout the adjudication of the petition. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). 
As described above, key documents in the Petitioner's initial submission date from 2013 or earlier, 
significantly before the petition's filing date of March 2, 2015. The Director issued a request for 
evidence, instructing the Petitioner to submit evidence such as receipts and invoices to show that the 
foreign company is still actively doing business. In response, the Petitioner stated that the foreign 
company "continues to operate abroad." The Petitioner submitted copies of previously submitted 
materials, such as printouts from the foreign company's website dated 2007, but no new evidence to 
show continued business activity by the foreign company at the time of filing. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits copies of invoices from 2008, and various do~uments from 2009 and 
2012. The Petitioner stated that these invoices show that the foreign company remained active after the 
Petitioner filed its first petition on the Beneficiary's behalf in 2007, but the present petition is a separate 
proceeding; initiated in 2015 with the filing of a new Form I-140. USCIS denied the 2007 petition, and 
therefore that petition did not retain a priority date. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(e). Furthermore, because 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1) requires continuing eligibility throughout adjudication, evidence of business 
activity only in 2007 would not suffice even ifthe Petitioner had retained a 2007 priority date. 
The Petitioner states: ' is currently active and being re-structured for 
continuation of business." The Petitioner does not explain or document this restructuring. 
An untranslated Brazilian government document shows various dates from December 19, 2002, to July 
12, 2016. Because the Petitioner submitted no certified English translation of this document, we 
cannot determine its relevance or significance. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The dates, by 
themselves, are not evidence that the foreign company is regularly, systematically, and continuously 
providing goods or services. 
The Petitioner also states (note: errors in the original have not been changed): 
Please find attached an article of incorporation ... which shows that the Beneficiary has 
also a partnership with ' in the same 
field ofbusiness as showing that in fact [the Beneficiary] is qualified to be a 
manager for and [the Petitioner] (noting that' 
has also an associate in the USA.) 
The name of appears on untranslated documents from 
June 2015, which appear to designate the Beneficiary as a 20 percent owner of that company. The 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of T-C-, Inc. 
only identified owner of the petitioning company, has no ownership interest in 
this newly named company. The Petitioner has not established or claimed any qualifying 
relationship between itself and Therefore, the Petitioner 
has not shown how these 2015 documents relate to the present proceeding. The Petitioner cannot 
establish eligibility by showing the Beneficiary's recent involvement in an unaffiliated business. 
For the reasons explained above, the Petitioner has not shown that the foreign company is stiJI doing 
business, which is necessary for the Petitioner to qualify as a multinational business. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that a qualifying 
relationship existed, and continues to exist, between the Petitioner and 
any still-active foreign 
company that previously employed the Beneficiary . 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above reason. In visa petition 
proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner. 
Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-C- . Inc., ID# 142393 (AAO Jan. 11, 2017) 
5