dismissed EB-1C Case: International Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11822015 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 25, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for a Multinational Executive or Manager 
The Petitioner, which describes itself in the Form I-140 as a wine export and construction products 
business, 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-1" 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 exists between the two companies. The Petitioner filed a combined motion 
to reopen and reconsider which the Director dismissed . 1 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In visa petition proceedings it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal because the record does not establish that the 
Petitioner's foreign parent is currently conducting business, without which the Petitioner has not 
established the multinational aspect of the petition, and therefore has not demonstrated there is a 
qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and the foreign entity. As this is a fundamental element 
of eligibility, which the Petitioner has not satisfied, we will reserve the other issues of whether the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad and will continue to be employed in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity, and whether the Petitioner has been doing business continuously in 
the United States from at least one year before the petition was filed up to the present. 
1 The Director did determin e on motion that the record established that the Beneficiary was employ ed 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 . 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 203(b)(l)(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 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3). 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 (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). 
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(j)(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 co 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 in I I 
2015 and describes its business as the distribution of primarily Napa Valley wines 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 las a deputy general 
manager starting in July 2015, was granted an L-1 A nonimmigrant visa on September 1, 2017, and 
transferred to the United States to assume the position of president with the Petitioner. The I-140 
immigrant petition was filed on March 30, 2018, 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(j)(2). The 
Petitioner must establish thatl I the foreign entity transferring the Beneficiary to the United 
States, conducts business to establish a qualifying multinational relationship. The I-140 petition was 
2 
filed by the Petitioner in March 2018.2 Hi I is not, or is no longer, "conducting business" as 
prescribed in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(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. 
With its initial evidence and in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) in January 2019 
the Petitioner submitted various documentation pertaining tol Is business activities, including 
a series of business licenses issued between July 2014 and September 2018; a building lease agreement 
for the time period of February 2017 through January 2022; customs declarations and invoices dating 
from 2014 and 2015; a balance sheet dated December 31, 2016; an auditor's report dated June 30, 
201 7; two sales and service contracts in December 2017 and February 2018 between I I and 
municipal authorities inl I website printouts aboutl I and undated photographs of its 
business premises. 
In the initial decision denying the petition, dated December 23, 2019, the Director stated that printouts 
from webpages do not demonstrate that I I is doing business. The Director also stated that while 
the business license( s) and lease agreement show thaf lis authorized to do business and has the 
space to do so, they do not demonstrate that a good or service is being provided. As for the invoices 
and sales agreements submitted forl l the Director determined that they did not demonstrate 
that the company continues to provide the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and 
services. The Director concluded that the record failed to establish thatl ~s still doing business 
as defined in the regulation. The failure to establish thatl lis still doing business, the Director 
continued, cast doubt on whether a qualifying relationship still exists with the Petitioner. 
In its motion to reopen and reconsider the Petitioner reviewel its previously submitted evidence and 
maintained that the documents as a whole demonstrated that 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 2017 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 latter the filinr of the I-140 petition in March 2018. The Director concluded that the record 
did not establish that I was still conducting business and continues to have a qualifying 
relationship with the Petitioner. 
On appeal the Petitioner once again references its previously submitted evidence and reiterates its 
claim that this documentation demonstrates tha~ I is still doing business. As with its previous 
motion, the Petitioner submits no new documentation. Thus, there is still no evidence in the record of 
any provision of goods or services byl lsince the customs declarations and invoices from 2014 
and 2015. The Petitioner has had ample opportunity to submit additional evidence on motion and on 
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(b )(1 ). 
3 
appeal to demonstrate thatl lhas been conducting business in the years since 2015, as required 
to satisfy the regulatory definition of "multinational" and to be a qualifying entity. It has not done so. 
Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to establish that its foreign 
parent,! I is currently "conducting business" or has been "conducting business" at any time 
since the filing of the 1-140 petition in March 2018. 3 Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that 
it foreign parent is a qualifying entity or has a qualifying relationship to transfer the Beneficiary to the 
United States. Accordingly, the Petitioner had not established that the petition or the Beneficiary 
qualifies for classification as a multinational executive or manager. 
B. Other Issues 
As previously indicated, 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 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 established that its foreign parent is currently "conducting business" and 
therefore has not established that it is a qualifying entity or that the Petitioner has a qualifying 
relationship with the foreign parent. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See Matter of F-M- Co, Adopted Decision 2020-21 (AAO May 5, 2020), which states: 
The principal focus of both the statute and the regulations is the continuity of the beneficiary's 
employment with the same multinational organization. See section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A) and (B). This interpretation is consistent with the purpose in creating this 
classification as a means of permanently transferring key managers and executives within a multinational 
organization. A beneficiary cannot be transferred to the United States as a multinational executive or 
manager from a company that is no longer in the same multinational organization, whether that is 
because the former employer no longer exists in any form, or because it no longer shares the requisite 
common ownership and control with the petitioning U.S. employer. Cf 52 Fed. Reg. 5738, 5741 
(Feb. 26, 1987) ("requiring that the organization continue to do business in the U.S. and abroad" and 
overruling by regulation Matter of Thompson, 18 T&N Dec. I 69 (Comm'r 1981 )). 
Furthermore, the regulations require that a petitioner maintain its qualifying relationship from the time 
of filing through the adjudication ofthe petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
4