dismissed EB-1C Case: International Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17681492 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUGUST 27, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for a Multinational Executive or Manager 
The Petitioner, which describes its business as encompassing wine distribution, real estate 
development, sourcing and export of construction materials to China, and sales of California lottery 
tickets, 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. § 1153(b)(l)(C). This employment-based "EB-I" immigrant 
classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the 
United States to work in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition on multiple grounds. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
or is currently employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The Director also 
determined that that Petitioner did not establish that it was doing business for at least one year before 
this petition was filed and continues to do business or that the foreign parent company for which the 
Beneficiary previously worked is currently conducting business, which cast doubt on whether a 
qualifying relationship still existed between the two companies. The Petitioner filed a combined 
motion to reopen and reconsider which the Director dismissed. 1 
The Petitioner then filed an appeal, which we dismissed on the ground that the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner's foreign parent was currently conducting business, without which the Petitioner 
did not establish the multinational aspect of the petition, and therefore did not demonstrate that there 
was a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and the foreign entity. We reserved the other 
issues of whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would continue to be employed in the 
United States in a managerial or executive capacity, and whether the Petitioner had been doing 
business continuously in the United States from at least one year before the petition was filed up to 
the present. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. A motion to reopen 
must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion 
to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy 
and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of 
1 The Director did determine on motion that the record established that the Beneficiary was employed abroad for at least 
one year during the three years preceding his entry into the United States, though not in a managerial or executive capacity . 
the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
Upon review we will dismiss the combined motion. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa 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. 
A United States employer may file a Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (I-140 petition), 
to classify a beneficiary under section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. 
The petition must be accompanied by a statement from an authorized official of the petitioning U.S. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3). 
As defined in the regulations: "Doing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous 
provision of goods and/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(i)(2). "Multinational means that the qualifying 
entity, or its affiliate, or subsidiary conducts business in two or more countries, one of which is the 
United States." Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record indicates that the Petitioner a California cor oration is a wholl owned subsidiary of a 
Chinese company,~------------------------~ which was 
established in 1998 and whose business the Petitioner describes as international trading and sales of 
water treatment products and air purification products. The Petitioner was incorporated inl I 
2015 and describes its business as the distribution of primaril~ lwines domestically and 
abroad, real estate purchases and sales, sourcing of construction materials for export to China, and 
sales of California lottery tickets. The Beneficiary was employed byl I as a deputy general 
manager starting in July 2015, was granted an L-lA nonimmigrant visa on September 1, 2017, and 
was transferred to the United States to assume the position of president with the Petitioner. The I-140 
petition was filed on March 30, 2018, seeking immigrant status for the Beneficiary as a multinational 
executive or manager. 
A. Conducting Business Abroad 
As noted above, "multinational means that the qualifying entity, or its affiliate, or subsidiary, conducts 
business in two or more countries, one of which is the United States." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2). The 
2 
Petitioner must establish thatl lthe foreign entity that transferred the Beneficiary to the United 
States, conducts business to establish a qualifying multinational relationship. 1±1 I was not 
conducting business at the time the I-140 petition was filed by the Petitioner in March 2018, or is no 
longer conducting business as prescribed in 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(j)(2), 2 it would not be a qualifying entity 
to meet the definition of multinational and would not have a qualifying relationship with the Petitioner, 
as required for the Beneficiary to obtain an immigrant visa as a multinational executive or manager. 
In the initial decision denying the petition, dated December 23, 2019, the Director stated that printouts 
from webpages did not demonstrate that I I was doing business. The Director also stated that 
while the business license(s) and lease agreement in the record showed thatl lwas authorized 
to do business and had the space to do so, they did not demonstrate that a good or service was being 
provided. As for the invoices and sales agreements submitted fon I the Director determined 
that they did not demonstrate that the company continued to provide the regular, systematic, and 
continuous provision of goods and services. The Director concluded that the record failed to establish 
thatl lwas still doing business as defined in the regulation. The failure to establish thatl I 
was still doing business, the Director continued, cast doubt on whether a qualifying relationship still 
existed with the Petitioner. 
In its motion to reopen and reconsider the Petitioner reviewed its previously submitted evidence and 
maintained that the documents as a whole demonstrated thatl I had been and still was doing 
business. No new evidence was submitted in support of the motion. 
In dismissing the motion on March 23, 2020, the Director noted that the record did not include any 
invoices after 2015, that the sales agreements from 201 7 and 2018 did not show that a good or service 
was actually provided, and that little or no evidence had been submitted of any business activity by 
I lafter the filinT ofthe T-140 petition in March 2018. The Director concluded that the record 
did not establish that I was still conducting business and continued to have a qualifying 
relationship with the Petitioner. 
On appeal the Petitioner once again referenced its previously submitted evidence and reiterated its 
claim that this documentation demonstrated thatl lwas still conducting business. As with its 
previous motion, the Petitioner submitted no new documentation. Thus, there was still no evidence in 
the record of any provision of goods or services byl lsince the customs declarations and 
invoices from 2014 and 2015. 
In dismissing the appeal on January 25, 2021, we concluded that the Petitioner had failed to establish 
that its foreign parentJ I was currently conducting business or had been conducting business at 
any time since the filing of the T-140 petition in March 2018. Therefore, the Petitioner had not 
established that its foreign parent was a qualifying entity or had a qualifying relationship to transfer 
the Beneficiary to the United States, and had not established that the petition or the Beneficiary 
qualified for classification as a multinational executive or manager. 
2 The regulations require that a petitioner maintain its qualifying relationship from the time of filing through the 
adjudication of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.2(6)(1). 
3 
In its current combined motion the Petitioner supplements its previously submitted documentation 
pertaining tol l's business activities with some more recent Chinese-language documentation 
accompanied by English translations, including what appear to be a maintenance agreement with a 
hospital in I I dated November 20, 2019; a series of sales invoices with dates ranging from 
April 9, 2018, to December 23, 2019; and a business license dated March 9, 2020; along with an 
English-language payroll summary for January 2020. While the maintenance agreement and sales 
invoices appear to show tha~ I was conducting business in 2018 and 2019, the translations of 
those documents do not comport with the regulatory requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), which 
provides that: 
Any document contammg foreign language submitted to [USCIS] shall be 
accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified 
as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
The English translations accompanying the Chinese language documents submitted on motion do not 
include certifications from the translator (who is not identified) that the translations are complete and 
accurate and that the translator is competent to translate from Chinese into English. Thus, the 
translations do not meet the substantive requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The regulation is 
designed to assure the reliability of English translations submitted in these proceedings, and the 
Petitioner's failure to adhere to that requirement lowers the probative value of the Chinese language 
documents. In visa petition proceedings it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. See section 291 of the Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Therefore, we will not 
accept the alleged maintenance agreement and sales invoices as proof thatl I was conducting 
business in 2018 and 2019. As for the alleged business license dated in March 2020, for which a 
proper translation is also lacking, the Petitioner has already been advised in previous decisions that 
while a business license may be good evidence of the holder's authorization to do business, it is not 
persuasive evidence that the licensee is actually conducting business. Finally, the English language 
payroll summary for January 2020 bears no evidence of being an official business record and the 
Petitioner does not clarify its derivation. Therefore, it has little evidentiary weight. 
Thus, the new facts presented by the Petitioner to show its foreign parent is conducting business are 
not supported by reliable and acceptable documentary evidence. Therefore, they do not meet the 
requirements of a motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) and do not demonstrate eligibility for 
the requested immigration benefit. Accordingly, we will dismiss the motion to reopen. The Petitioner 
does not allege that in our previous decision we incorrectly applied any law or policy in determining 
that the Petitioner failed to establish that its foreign parent is conducting business. Therefore, the 
current motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § l 03.5(a)(3). 
Accordingly, we will also dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
B. Other Issues 
As in our previous decision dismissing the appeal, we reserve the issues of whether the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad and will continue to be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
4 
executive capacity, and whether the Petitioner has been doing business continuously from at least one 
year before the petition was filed up to the present. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration of our prior decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5