dismissed EB-1C Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23414621 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 1, 2022 
Form I-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner identifies itself as an engineering consultant operation and seeks to permanently employ 
the Beneficiary as its president 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. 
§ 115 3 (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 of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: 1) it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's claimed foreign 
employer; 2) the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad prior to his 
entry into the United States as a non immigrant; and 3) the Beneficiary would be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 1 The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 because 
the Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's claimed 
foreign employer . Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate regarding the Beneficiary's foreign and 
proposed employment. 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 )(1 )(C) of the Act. 
1 In the matter of a previously filed Form I-140 (with receiptnumbd I the Director of the Texas Service 
Centerrevoked approval of the petition and entered a separate finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
The Form I-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). The petition must also be 
accompanied by evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered 
wage at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
This decision we will address the Director's detennination that the Petitioner did not establish that it 
has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad. To establish a "qualifying 
relationship," the Petitioner must show that it and the Beneficiary's foreign employer are the same 
employer (i.e., a U.S. entity with a foreign office) or that they are 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(i)(3)(i)(C). 
Regulation and case law confim1 that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities. See, 
e.g., Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Siemens Med. 
Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r l986);Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). 
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. Matter of Church Scientology Int l, 19 
I&N Dec. at 595. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer in Syria. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2) (for definition of "subsidiary"). However, the record 
lacks evidence that adequately and consistently establishes the Petitioner's ownership and therefore it 
does not support the Petitioner's claim. 
The Petitioner's supporting evidence includes a personnel plan which states that the Petitioner is "[t]he 
U.S. Branch" of ____________ in Syria. However, the Petitioner provided 
corporate documents from 2012, including its certificate of filing and certificate of formation, which 
show that the Petitioner was established as a for-profit corporation and is authorized to issue up to 
50,000 shares of stock with a par value of $1.00 per share. These documents indicate thatthe Petitioner 
is therefore not a branch of a foreign entity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( 1 )(ii)(J) ( defining "branch" as an 
operating division or office of the same organization housed in a different location). The Petitioner 
also provided its 2017 tax return, complete with Schedule K-1, which lists the Beneficiary and 
I las each owning 40% of the Petitioner and las owning the remaining 
20%, thus undennining the Petitioner's prior claims that is either a branch or a subsidiary of a foreign 
entity. 
Further, although the Petitioner provided a document titled "Joint Venture Agreement" which referred 
to the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer - ____________  - - as "Parent 
Company" and to the Petitioner as "U.S. Branch," the agreement did not address the issue of the 
2 
Petitioner's ownership or even identify the Petitioner as a party to the agreement; rather, the agreement 
stated that it was "betweenl I of ... ___________ ... and 
I of [ the Petitioner]," thus indicating that the named individuals, not their respective 
employers, were the contracting parties. Further, the agreement confusingly refers to the joint venture 
as a "branch business office" in Texas, even though neither the agreement nor the Petitioner's 
incorporation documents indicate thatthis reference is accurate. These inconsistencies concerning the 
Petitioner's ownership must be resolved through the submission of independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The evidence also does not establish that the Petitioner and 
previously referred to as the "Parent Company," have an affiliate relationship, which requires the 
Petitioner to establish that it and the Beneficiary's foreign employer are owned and controlled by a 
common parent or by a common group of individuals with each individual owning and controlling 
approximately the same prop01iion of each entity. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) (defining the tenn 
"affiliate"). Although the Petitioner provided translations of two certificates of corporate registration, 
the translated materials cannot be deemed as having been properly certified, as they are not 
accompanied by a translator's statement certifying that the English language translation is complete 
and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). One of the translated copies is stamped "Sworn translation" and contains 
what appears to be the first initial and name of the translator. However, it is not clear that a "sworn 
translator" is synonymous with a certified translator and that the translated documents meet the 
regulatory criteria. As such, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated material is 
accurate. The Petitioner resubmitted these documents in response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE), asserting that the foreign certificate of corporate registration serves "as evidence of 
the [B]eneficiary's executive partnership with the foreign entity." However, like the prior submission 
of these documents, the copies submitted in response to the RFE were similarly flawed in that they 
were not accompanied by certified English translations as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The Petitioner also asserted that its own articles of incorporation and corporate bylaws "serve as 
evidence of the [B]eneficiary' s partnership with the U.S. entity." Although the Petitioner provided a 
copy of its corporate bylaws, this document does not identify the company's owners. In fact, although 
the bylaws are signed by the Beneficiary and I I each in their individual capacity as 
"executive partner," neither the bylaws nor other evidence in the record establishes that the title of 
"executive partner" confers with it ownership and control of the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner also provided its tax returns from 2018-2020, each complete with a Schedule K-1, 
which contains information about the Petitioner's claimed shareholders. Schedule K-1 in the 2018 tax 
return contains the same inf01mation as in the previously discussed2017 tax return in that both tax 
returns show the Beneficiary and las each owning 40% of the Petitioner and 
I las owning the remaining20%. However, the Schedule K-ls in the Petitioner's 2019 
and 2020 tax returns list the Beneficiary and las the two owners, each with a 
50% ownership interest. The Petitioner did off er corroborating evidence, such as a corporate stock 
certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, or comparable evidence documenting the company's 
shareholders, the total number of shares issued to each shareholder, and any changes in the Petitioner's 
ownership to establish who owns and controls the U.S. entity. Given the discrepancies concerning the 
Petitioner's ownership, corroborating evidence is particularly critical in this matter, where the 
3 
Petitioner originally claimed that it is owned by another entity, but then submitted tax returns showing 
that it is owned by individuals. See Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits three stock certificates - nos. 1010, 1011, and 1012 - all issued in 
2013. Certificatenos.l010and1012 show that they were issued to the Beneficiary and tol I I I respectively, givingeach400 shares; certificate no. 1011 shows that200 shares were issued 
to I I The Petitioner provided no evidence establishing that these were the only shares 
issued, a possibility we cannot rule out given that the Petitioner is authorized to issue up to 50,000 
shares. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). Further, although two stock purchase 
agreements have been submitted on appeal, showing ownership changes that align with the ownership 
distributions discussed in the Petitioner's 2019 and 2020 tax returns, both purchase agreements show 
January 2018 as theirrespective dates of execution. Itis therefore unclear why the Petitioner continued 
to list las an owner in its 2018 tax return, which accounts for the 2018 calendar year 
ending in December 2018, if I sold his ownership interest to the two remaining shareholders 
in January 2018, the start of the calendar year. See id. 
Finally, although the Petitioner claims that it has been unable to "request all the documents" from the 
Syrian government offices due to the ongoing war in Syria, it does not specify which documents it 
seeks to obtain or what, if any, relevant information the purportedly unobtainable documents hold. 
Furthermore, as discussed above, the Petitioner has made inconsistent claims and provided deficient 
evidence regarding its own ownership. As previously noted, the Petitioner originally claimed to be a 
branch or subsidiary of a foreign entity, but in response to the RFE and on appeal it provided stock 
certificates and tax returns which are wholly inconsistent with either claim. To date, the Petitioner has 
neither acknowledged nor provided evidence to resolve the previously noted inconsistencies. Nor has 
the Petitioner provided adequate evidence pertaining to the foreign entity's ownership to establish that 
it and the foreign entity are affiliates by virtue of sharing common ownership, either by one individual 
or by multiple individuals whereby the same individuals own both the Petitioner and the foreign entity. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) (defining the term "affiliate"). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship 
with the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer. Therefore, this petition cannot be approved. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4