dismissed EB-1C Case: Restaurant Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17586794 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 7, 2021 
Form I-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a restaurant operating within a 60-restaurant group, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its general manager 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 the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
Although the record indicates that the Beneficiary's proposed position meets the statutory criteria of 
an individual who will be employed in a managerial capacity, the appeal was improperly filed and will 
therefore be rejected. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B), only the "affected party" may file an appeal from an 
unfavorable decision. The term "affected party'' applies to a person or entity with legal standing in a 
proceeding and does not include the beneficiary of a visa petition. Id. A party that does not meet this 
criteria is not entitled to file an appeal; an appeal filed by an unaffected party must be rejected as 
improperly filed. See 8 C.F.R . § 103 .3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
In the matter at hand, Part 1, No. 2 of the Form I-140 lists as 
the Petitioner. As such, only.__ ____________ ___. is the affected party entitled to 
file an appeal from an adverse decision . The appeal in this instance, however, was not filed by the 
Petitioner, but rather by another party, I t where the 
Beneficiary is currently employed based on an approved L-1 A nonimmigrant petition filed lby the I 
latter party on the Beneficiary's behalf .1 Although the Beneficiary's current employer, 
I land the Petitioner, i.e. , the prospective employer, are both members 
1 The L-lA petition (with receiptnurnbeJ._ _____ ~ was approved and is valid for a two-year period ending on 
January 20, 2022 . 
in an affiliate group of restaurants, 2 the two are nevertheless separate entities, as indicated by their 
distinct IRS tax identification numbers 3 and by the information contained in the parent entity's 2018 
consolidated tax return, which lists and provides the financial details of each restaurant that is an 
affiliated member of the group. 4 The record also contains the Petitioner's articles of incorporation and 
copy of the stock certificate that the Petitioner issued to the parent entity. Thus, the evidence 
demonstrates that the Petitioner, I I and I I 
_________ _,the Beneficiary's current employer, are two separate entities. 
Because the appeal was filed by.__ _____________ __,ratherthan by the Petitioner, 
which is the affected party in this matter, the appeal was not properly filed. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
2The term "affiliate" applies when two entities are owned and controlled by the same parent or individual or by the same 
group of individuals with each individual owning and controllin a roximatel the same share or proportion or each 
entity. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(2). are both ownedby~----.------.--~and are therefore affiliates 
3 The Form I-140shows the Petitioner's "IRS TaxNumber"a~,.._ ___ ...,,whilethe IRS W-2 statements issued bye=] 
MA) Inc. show an IRS employer identification numberasl I 
~4T-l-1e_t_a_x_r-et_ur_n_w-~s-f-j)~ed bvl I qnd includes the deductions for each U.S. subsidiary, including 
the Petitioner and[ IMA) Inc., whose2018 deductions totaled $3,177,344 and $L924J07, 
respectively. 
2