dismissed EB-1C Case: Drug Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 18355808 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 15, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, which provides contract services related to drug development, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as a senior clinical team manager under the first preference immigrant 
classification for multinational managers or executives. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and (2) the Petitioner has the ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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). 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that it has a 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." See generally 
section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) 
defines the relevant terms. Ownership and control are the factors that determine whether a qualifying 
relationship exists between United States and foreign entities for purposes of this visa classification. 1 
In the context of this visa petition, ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of possession 
of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; control means the direct or indirect 
legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. 2 
In its initial letter, submitted with the petition, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary worked from 
2011 to 2015 "with our corporate affiliate~ I The Petitioner asserts that it andD 
I l"are both wholly owned subsidiaries o ~--------------~t' 
The organization had previously filed a blanket L nonimmigrant petition under the provisions of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(2)(ii).3 The Petitioner submits an "Addendum to Form I-129 L Supplement re: 
Entities to be included on Corporate L Blanket" (Addendum), listing all the affiliated entities covered 
by the blanket petition. The document does not list any company called I I' or any name 
that would be recognizably interchangeable or synonymous with that name. The only entity shown in 
c=Jis a branch office ofl I headquartered in the United Kingdom. 
The Director requested additional evidence of a qualifying relationship between the petitioning U.S. 
employer andl I In response, the Petitioner again repeatedly and exclusively identified the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer as I I The Petitioner also submitted the following 
documentation showing that the parent company has a subsidiary operating illLJ: 
• A list of subsidiaries submitted with the rarent 
1
company's 2019 SEC Form 10-K Annual 
Report lists only one company operating in specifically! I 
• A printout from the parent company's website refers to an unnamed office at an unspecified 
addressinl land 
• A certificate of incorporation from I Is Registry of Companies shows that II I I' based in the United Kingdom, registered as a foreign compan~ 
None of this documentation refers to a company called ~I-----~ 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter attesting to the Beneficiary's work abroad. Several factors 
diminish this letter's weight: 
• The letter refers to I I but never directly names the specific employing entity in 
~-~I The specific name of the foreign employer is material and central to eligibility because 
the Petitioner has provided conflicting names. 
1 See Matter of Church Scientology Int 'I. 19 T&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 T&N 
Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 T&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). 
2 Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 l&N Dec. at 595. 
3 The Beneficiary did not enter the United States under the blanket L petition; she entered as a J-2 nonimmigrant spouse 
of a J-1 exchange visitor. 
2 
• The signature block on the letter reads "Manager Name, Title," followed by an electronic 
signature showing a name and the title "Director." The generic phrase "Manager Name, Title" 
implies that the letter has an anonymous author who did not know the identity of the person 
who would eventually sign it. 
• The electronic signature does not name the company that the signatory directs. 
• Letters attesting to an employee's experience must include the writer's name, title, and address. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). The letter is on the U.S. parent company's letterhead, showing its 
North Carolina address, which indicates that the letter did not come from the employer abroad. 
The electronic signature does not include the director's address inl I 
In the denial notice, the Director acknowledged the submitted evidence, but concluded that none of 
this evidence establishes a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner andl I 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director "incorrectly determined that Petitioner ... did not 
have a qualifying relationship with its entity in I II I' This statement 
mischaracterizes the conclusions in the Director's decision. The Director acknowledged that the 
submitted evidence identifies! I as the Petitioner's affiliate, but the Director also found 
that the Petitioner had identified the Beneficiary's foreign emploxer asl I Prior to the 
appeal, the Petitioner never stated that the Beneficiary worked forl I The presence of 
an acknowledged affiliate inc=] does not compel the conclusion that this affiliate must have been 
the Beneficiary's employer, regardless of whether the Petitioner called the company by the correct 
name. 
The appeal includes a document showing that.__ __________ ~ changed its legal name 
to I I This links the Pharmco certificate of incorporation to the list of subsidiaries 
submitted with the Form 10-K, but it does not resolve the issue at hand because neither of those 
company names is .__ _____ _. Prior to the appeal, correspondence from the Petitioner and its 
attorney of record) specifically identified the foreign employer 10 times as either ' r---------;...--,--------,-____J 
or 1 t The Petitioner submits no evidence to show that'-------.........,..---,-1 is the same legal 
entity as I ~ and we are under no obligation to presume or mfer t at the Petitioner 
inadvertently used the wrong name every time it attempted to identify the ejplo
1
er abroad. (The final 
"Inc." indicates a legal name, rather than an informal shorthand term for a affiliate inl I 
The "Certificate of Change of Company Name" raises additional questions. As noted above, the 
Addendum refers to the company in I I as a branch of 1 I" not I I 
.__ _______ ~' That Addendum is dated December 4, 201 7. The name change certificate was 
issued nearly two years later, November 14, 2019 (three weeks after the petition's October 23 filing 
date). If the name change did not occur until 2019, then the 2017 Addendum ought to show the 
company name as 1 t' but that name does not appear on the Addendum. 
Regardless of this unexplained discrepancy, the Petitioner has not submitted any comparable 
documentation to show thatl I was ever called! I 
The burden of proof is on the Petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. By signing the 
petition form, the Petitioner attested to the truthfulness and accuracy of the information in the petition. 
The Petitioner has repeatedly identified the Beneficiary's foreign employer as'-------~' a 
name that does not appear anywhere in the legal documents and filings that the Petitioner submitted 
3 
as supporting evidence. We do not dispute that the Petitioner has an affiliate inc=J, but that affiliate 
does not have the name that the Petitioner repeatedly and specifically claimed, and the record does not 
contain any documentary evidence to link the Beneficiary withl l's branch inl I 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
it has a qualifying relationship with an entity called I or thatl I employed 
the Beneficiary inl I This determination, by itself: is sufficient to determine the outcome of the 
appeal. Detailed discussion of the remaining ground for denial, concerning the Petitioner's ability to 
pay the Beneficiary's salary, cannot change that outcome. Therefore, we reserve that issue.4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established the existence of an affiliate in Israel. But because of conflicting 
assertions and gaps in the record, the Petitioner has not shown that it has a qualifying relationship with 
the entity named as the Beneficiary's foreign employer. Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4