dismissed EB-1C Case: Hospitality

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25426567 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 31, 2023 
Form I-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, part of a hotel organization, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a director 
of catering and events 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. 
§ l 153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 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 petitioning United States employer must establish 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding 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). 
From 2015 to 2019, the Beneficiary was director of events for I in Canada. She then 
entered the United States as an L-lA nonimmigrant to work at the 
The Petitioner described the claimed ualif in relationshi between the entities in the United States 
and Canada: mana es and o eratesl I 
________ controls and operates _________ . . . These properties 
are ultimately managed and controlled by [the petitioning entity], a company ultimately owned by 
I I 
As a publicly traded company, files Fonn 10-K annual reports with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission. The Petitioner submitted excerpts from the list of subsidiaries froml I 2020 Form 
10-K. The Petitioner stated that this list shows that the Petitioner "directly manages and controls both 
But the submitted portions of the list do not name 
individual hotels, nor do they identif The only named entity in Canada 
is which the Petitioner did not identify as part of chain of 
ownership. Therefore, the partial list of subsidiaries does not establish a qualifying relationship 
between the Beneficiary's two employers. 
I I Form l 0-K for 2020, submitted with the petition, indicates that while over 6400 hotels bear 
the names of various I !directly owns or leases only 61 hotels worldwide, only one 
of which is in North America, and none are in the United States. Over 5600 of the branded properties 
are listed as "Franchised." I lstated on its Form 10-K: "We do not own, manage or operate 
franchised properties and do not employ the individuals working at these locations." Apart from 
franchised properties,! I operates 715 properties "under management contracts for the benefit of 
third parties who either own or lease the hotels." This arrangement indicates that not all I I 
branded hotels share a qualifying relationship through I I 
The Director requested evidence to show a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and In 
response, the Petitioner stated that "manages I operates 
I I and repeated the asse1iion that L=.] is a wholly-owned subsidiary of I The 
Petitioner submitted three documents, which the Petitioner described as follows: 
• 2013 Management Agreement forl I demonstrating that Canada 
Managed LP served as Manager andl I serves as Operator; 
• Assignment of Manager of Canadian Properties as of 07/1/2014, demonstrating that 
the properties managed by Canada Managed LP were transferred to 
and 
• List of current I subsidiaries from most recently filed 10-K. 
2 
The Director denied the petition,
1 
stating that the submitted evidence "does not include details of the 
management agreement between and the properties that was [sic] assigned." 
On appeal, the Petitioner attributes the denial to "a misunderstanding of the provided evidence" and 
asserts that the Director did not sufficiently consider the management agreement in the record, and 
that the various documents, taken together, establish a qualifying relationship between c=]and the 
Petitioner. We agree with this assertion with respect to misunderstanding the evidence, but 
nevertheless we do not agree that the Petitioner has established the Beneficiary's eligibility, because 
the record does not establish thatOwas the Beneficiary's employer in Canada. 
The regulation and case law confirm that 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. See Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also Matter 
of Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); 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. 
As discussed below, documents in the record show that al I subsidiary has a considerable degree 
of control over I but not ownership of that hotel. 
A 2006 management agreement refers to a "Franchise License Agreement," indicating that I I 
is a franchisee, and not anl -owned property. The agreement indicates that the owner of 
_____ hired an I I subsidiary to manage the hotel. Parties to that agreement have since 
changed, but the Petitioner maintains on a eal that the 2006 a reement remains in effect. Since 
2013, the owner of the hotel has bee 
Since 2014, has served as the manager --------------------~ 
The more complete subsidiary list identifies both and the Petitioner as subsidiaries of I and 
therefore it establishes a qualifying relationship between and the Petitioner. But the petitioning 
U.S. employer must have a qualifying relationship with the "legal entity by which the alien was 
employed overseas." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). Here, the Petitioner's evidence shows thatD 
was not the Beneficiary's employer in Canada. 
Paragraph 4.05 of the 2006 management agreement includes the following clauses: 
4.05.1 
... For clarity, all employees are employees of the Owner or the Owner's Affiliate, 
except the General Manager, regional director of finance and area director of sales and 
marketing/director of business development, who are employed by the Manager at 
Owner's expense .... 
4.05.2 
All employees of the Hotel, except the [three pos1t10ns named above], shall be 
employees of the Owner or Owner's Affiliate and will be managed by the Manager, 
3 
and all Compensation of such employees shall be paid by the Owner or Owner's 
Affiliate at the direction of the Manager .... 
4.05.6 
... For certainty, Manager shall not make any contributions to the [employee] Benefit 
Plans, and the Manager is not an employer of Hotel Personnel (other than the [three 
named positions])for any purpose. 
(Emphasis added.) The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary worked atl I as 
general manager, regional director of finance, or area director of sales and marketing/director of 
business development. Therefore, the tenns of the agreement lead us to conclude thatl I 
(the "Owner") was the Beneficiary's employer from 2015 to 2019, and (the "Manager") was "not 
[her] employer ... for any pmpose." Consistent with these terms, copies of the Beneficiary's pay 
statements in the record identify her "Employer" asl I 
[ operating as] 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) requires a qualifying relationship between the prospective U.S. employer 
and the legal entity that employed the beneficiary abroad. The evidence in the record identifies the 
Beneficiary's employer abroad as I with which the Petitioner has neither claimed nor 
demonstrated a qualifying relationship. 
Materials in the record raise an additional related question. The Form 10-K in the record indicates 
that ldoes not directly own or lease any properties in the United States; rather, it manages 208 
independently owned properties and has franchise agreements with 4,967 more. The Form 10-K also 
stipulates thatl I "do[es] not employ the individuals working at [franchised] locations." This 
language leaves open the question of whether I I employs the individuals working at the U.S. 
properties that it manages. On the petition form, the Petitioner claims 75,000 U.S. employees. But, 
as noted above, the only management agreement in the record stipulates that most of the staff at one 
managed property (in Canada, not the United States) are notl I employees "for an purpose." 
Therefore, the question arises as to whether the Beneficiary is, and would remain, a em lo ee 
at thel I The record does not identify the owner of the hotel in __ 
nor does it include a copy of any management agreement between that owner and any entity within 
the I I organization. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record identifies the Beneficiary's employer in Canada asl I and the Petitioner has 
not established that it has a qualifying relationship with I I Therefore, we will dismiss 
the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4