dismissed EB-1C Case: Consumer Goods And Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 3675621 
Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 22, 2021 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, identifying itself as a consumer goods exporter and real estate property manager, seeks 
to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its chief executive officer 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that (1) it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity 
and (2) it continues to do business and had been doing business for one year as of the date this petition 
was filed. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal because 
the Petitioner has not established that it is doing business and had been doing business for one year 
prior to filing this petition. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the 
Beneficiary's U.S. employment in a managerial or executive capacity. 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 of L-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). 
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(j)(3). 
• In some instances (such as when an issue is only touched upon briefly), a summary of the legal 
requirements with citations may be more appropriate than a full-text block quote. 
• A void referencing provisions/requirements that are not discussed in the analysis.] 
II. DOING BUSINESS 
The primary focus in this decision is the Petitioner's U.S. business activities and whether the Petitioner 
is currently doing business and had been doing business as of February 2014, 1 one year prior to filing 
this petition. 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). 
In the petition form, the Petitioner claimed 26 employees and indicated that it was operating as a 
"consumer goods export and real property management" company. In a supporting cover letter, the 
Petitioner stated that as a result of decreased trade volume between Venezuela and the United States, 
it decided to "augment" its plan to export home appliances to Venezuela by creating a U.S. subsidiary 
that would develop and invest in real estate and offer real estate consulting to potential investors. The 
Petitioner stated that it had one part-time and two full-time employees at the time of filing and that its 
U.S. subsidiary has 26 employees, thereby indicating that the information in the petition form 
pertained to the U.S. subsidiary rather than the Petitioner itself. It also provided evidence of wages it 
paid in 2013 and 2014 but offered no further information about its own business activities and 
submitted only its office lease, past and current local business licenses, bank statements, and utility 
bills as evidence that it is a "continuing active business." 
The Director reviewed the supporting documentation and issued a request for evidence (RFE) 
instructing the Petitioner to submit receipts, invoices, trade reports, or other similar types of documents 
to demonstrate that it has been doing business. 
In response, the Petitioner provided unsigned copies of its tax returns for 2014, 2015, and 2016 
claiming approximately $928,000, $2.6 million, and $3.2 million, respectively, in gross receipts or 
sales and approximately $833,000, $2.2 million, and $2.8, respectively, in salaries and wages. 
Although the Petitioner provided Form W-2 wage and tax statements and Form W-3s for 2014 and 
2015, these documents show that the Petitioner paid only $46,867 in wages in 2014, $23,433 in 2015, 
and $50,000 in 2016 during which the Beneficiary was the only employee issued a Form W-2; as such, 
these wage documents are in conflict with the wage information provided in the above tax returns. 
The Petitioner must resolve these discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
1 The petition was filed on February 27, 2015. 
2 
Although the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's paystubs for January through July 2017 and 
quarterly wage reports for the first and second quarters of 2017, these documents show that the 
Petitioner paid wages only to the Beneficiary. The Petitioner also offered organizational charts for its 
U.S. subsidiary along with job duty breakdowns describing positions depicted in those charts. The 
Petitioner neither claimed nor provided evidence showing that the subsidiary's employees actually 
worked for the Petitioner and were involved in the Petitioner's provision of goods or services at the 
time of filing. Although the Petitioner provided its own organizational chart depicting the Beneficiary 
and three other employees, it did not offer corresponding wage evidence to establish that it paid wages 
to anyone but the Beneficiary at the time of filing. 
The Director issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) acknowledging the submission of evidence 
showing that the Petitioner's U.S. subsidiary is doing business; however, the Director found that the 
record lacked sufficient evidence showing that the Petitioner continued to do business and that it had 
been doing business for one year prior to filing this petition. 
The Petitioner responded stating that even though it had only three employees at the time this petition 
was filed, it and its U.S. subsidiary are part of the same organization. Therefore, according to the 
Petitioner, the activities of its U.S. subsidiary should be taken into account in determining whether the 
Petitioner has been doing business and continues to do so. The Petitioner cited to and provided copies 
of one precedent decision - Matter of Leacheng, 26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015) - and one non­
precedent AAO decision to support its argument on the subject of doing business. 
In the denial decision, the Director reiterated findings from the NOID and declined to consider the 
business activities of the Petitioner's U.S. subsidiary in determining whether the Petitioner had been 
and continues to do business. The Director determined that the Petitioner's U.S. subsidiary is a 
separate entity and that its business activities do not establish that the Petitioner itself has been doing 
business in the United States. We agree with the Director. 
On appeal, the Petitioner offers evidence of business activity conducted by its U.S. subsidiary, 
contending that the Director erred by disregarding these business activities as evidence that the 
Petitioner has been and continues to do business in the United States. The Petitioner reasserts 
arguments made in its NOID response and again cites to the same decisions to support its arguments. 
In the precedent decision, Matter of Leacheng, 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 an affiliated company. Likewise, the petitioner in the non-precedent decision 
billed and was compensated for a service that it provided to an affiliated entity. 2 In both instances, 
the petitioning entities were providing and receiving compensation for services that they offered to 
their respective affiliate organizations. Given that both the precedent and non-precedent decisions 
involved petitioning entities that were themselves actually providing a service that was consistent with 
the definition of doing business, they can be readily distinguished from the instant Petitioner, which 
did not provide goods or services and incorrectly relied on the business activities of a separate entity, 
i.e., its U.S. subsidiary, as a substitute for its own business activities. 
2 We note that while 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding on USCIS, unpublished 
decisions, in general, are not similarly binding. 
3 
Although the Petitioner claims that it continued to provide goods or services until the first quarter of 
2015, it has not provided evidence to support this claim or to establish that it has provided goods or 
services since February 2014, one year prior to the instant petition's date of filing. The Petitioner must 
support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Although the Petitioner offered evidence demonstrating its 
continued corporate existence up to the present date, this factor is not in question and does not address 
the issue of whether it has been doing business. Likewise, the wage and tax documents that represent 
the business activities of an entity other than the Petitioner - even one that is related to the Petitioner 
- are not relevant because they do not establish that the Petitioner engaged and will continue to engage 
in the provision of goods or services on a regular, systematic, and continuous basis. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(2). The regulations clearly state that it is the intending U.S. employer, i.e., the petitioning 
entity, that must satisfy the doing business requirement. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D). 
Finally, the Petitioner acknowledges that it transferred the Beneficiary's entire support staff to work 
for the U.S. subsidiary because the Petitioner itself stopped doing business. As the Petitioner was not 
doing business at the time of filing, it cannot "continue" to do business going forward. Despite 
claiming that it had been doing business until the first quarter of 2015, the Petitioner has not 
substantiated this claim with sufficient evidence of its business activity. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that it had been doing business for 
one year as of the date this petition was filed and continued to do business beyond that time. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4