dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF MKU- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 12, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, which operates a gas station and convenience store, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its vice president under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity; (2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity; (3) the Beneficiary was employed abroad by a qualifying entity for at least one year 
during the three years preceding the filing of the petition; and (4) the Petitioner has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by disregarding evidence and information that 
the Petitioner had previously submitted. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. 
The Form 1-140, 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 corning 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). 
Matter of MKU- Corp. 
II. ONE YEAR OF QUALIFYING EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary worked abroad for the Petitioner's claimed parent 
company from June 1, 2004, to June 1, 2007. 1 The Beneficiary then entered the United States as an 
F-1 nonimmigrant student in December 2007. The Beneficiary remained in F-1 status until August 
31, 2011, when the Beneficiary changed nonimmigrant status to L-1 A through a petition filed by the 
Petitioner. The Petitioner did not claim or establish that any qualifying entity employed the 
Beneficiary between June 2007 and August 2011. 
In the denial notice, the Director noted the interruption in the Beneficiary's employment and observed 
that the Beneficiary did not initially enter the United States to work for the Petitioner or a related 
employer. The Director therefore concluded that "the relevant three year time period [ for employment 
abroad] ... is from August 31, 2008 until August 30, 2011." Because the Beneficiary was not 
employed abroad during that period, the Director found that the Beneficiary did not meet the 
requirement of one year of foreign employment during the relevant three-year period. 
On appeal, the Petitioner addresses other cited grounds for denial, but does not acknowledge or rebut 
the Director's finding regarding the lengthy interruption in the Beneficiary's employment. When a 
petitioner does not offer an argument on an issue on appeal, the petitioner abandons that 
issue. Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 
09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885, at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (a plaintiff's claims are 
abandoned when not raised on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, we will affirm the denial of the 
petition on this ground and dismiss the appeal. 
Although the appeal will be dismissed, we will briefly address this issue so the Petitioner may address 
it in any future filings. Nevertheless, this issue will remain a disqualifying factor in any such future 
filings until the Beneficiary accumulates a year of qualifying employment outside the United States. 
In the multinational manager or executive immigrant context, if a beneficiary entered the United States 
to work for a qualifying entity as a nonimmigrant (for example in H-lB or another work-authorized 
status), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will reach back three years from the date of their 
admission to determine whether they had the requisite one year of employment. Matter of S-P- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2018-01 (AAO Mar. 19, 2018); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). However, a 
beneficiary who was in some other nonimmigrant status (such as a B-2 tourist or an F-1 student) at the 
time of filing an immigrant petition would not be considered to be "working for" a qualifying entity 
as a nonimmigrant. Therefore, a beneficiary who worked abroad for a qualifying multinational 
organization for at least one year, but left its employ for a period of two years or longer after being 
admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant, would not be deemed as having worked for the 
qualifying foreign entity for the requisite one-year period. Such a beneficiary would not satisfy the 
foreign employment requirement either for the immigrant classification of a multinational manager or 
executive or for the L-lA nonimmigrant classification. An interruption in qualifying employment 
1 The Beneficiary was 17 years old on June 1, 2004. The Beneficiary's age raises questions about the nature of his claimed 
employment abroad (as an accountant at age 17, and then as vice president ofa college-level "Institute of Management 
Studies" at age 19), but we need not explore this issue in depth because the appeal is dismissible for other reasons. 
2 
Matter of MKU- Corp. 
lasting more than two years is inherently disqualifying, whether the beneficiary was abroad or in the 
United States during that interruption. 
In the present case, the Petitioner acknowledges that the Beneficiary's foreign employment ended in 
June 2007, and he was not authorized to work for the Petitioner until he received L-1 A nonimmigrant 
status in August 2011. According to a timeline provided by the Petitioner, the Beneficiary did not 
actually begin working for the Petitioner until January 2012. Thus, all other issues aside, the 
Petitioner's own information shows a gap in qualifying employment that lasted for four and a half 
years. This interruption, on its face, disqualifies the Beneficiary for status as a multinational manager 
or executive ( and for L-1 nonimmigrant status) until he acquires another year of qualifying 
employment outside the United States. 2 
As noted, the Director cited several other grounds for denial, but the acknowledged four-year 
interruption in the Beneficiary's employment abroad is, by itself, a disqualifying factor that requires 
denial of the petition and dismissal of the appeal. Thus, we need not reach the other issues in the 
denial notice, and therefore reserve them. Our reservation of these issues is not a stipulation that the 
Petitioner has overcome those other grounds for denial, and should not be construed as such. Rather, 
there is no constructive purpose to addressing those grounds here, because they cannot change the 
outcome of the appeal. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of MKU- Corp., ID# 4593694 (AAO July 12, 2019) 
2 The timeline also indicates that the Beneficiary did not qualify for L-lA status in 2011, and that the Petitioner's petition 
seeking that status for the Beneficiary was approved in error. 
3