remanded EB-1C Case: Automotive Repair

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 10, 2024 In Re: 33961707 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a company operating automotive repair businesses, 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. 
§ 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 a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that it had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The Petitioner later filed 
a motion to reopen that the Director also denied. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with our discussion below. 
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 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 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(i)(3). 
The Petitioner stated that 100% of its shares were first owned by another U.S. company , A-C- Inc., 
but that this company was dissolved, and shares were distributed in January 2018 to the Beneficiary 
and his foreign employer. 1 The Petitioner indicated that as of the date the petition was filed 51 % of 
its shares (5100) were owned by the Beneficiary's foreign employer, while the remaining 49% (4900) 
were owned by the Beneficiary. As such, the Petitioner asserted that the foreign employer was its 
parent company, and on this basis, they had a qualifying relationship. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship," the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (a U.S. entity with a foreign office) 
or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See § 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act; see also 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2) (providing definitions of the terms "affiliate" and "subsidiary"). 
Beyond meeting the regulatory definition of qualifying relationship, we also look to regulation and 
case law which confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities. See, 
e.g., Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); Matter ofSiemens Med. 
Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 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. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient supporting 
evidence, beyond stock certificates, to establish its asserted ownership. 2 The Director further reasoned 
the Petitioner did not provide evidence to demonstrate that there was a successor in interest to A-C­
Inc. and the foreign employer or a detailed list of owners and their percentages of ownership. The 
Director also concluded that "there was no evidence that the foreign entity has continued to exist, nor 
has it shown to still be doing business." Based on these determinations, the Director concluded the 
Petitioner did not establish that it had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer. The Petitioner later supplemented the record with additional evidence when filing a motion 
to reopen. The Director dismissed the motion stating that "the petitioner has still failed to submit [ with 
its] motion to reopen evidence there was a successor of interest between A-C- Inc. and [the foreign 
employer]." 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to submitted documentation relevant to its ownership and contends 
that it was not sufficiently considered by the Director. We agree. First, in the initial denial decision, 
the Director concluded the Petitioner did not submit evidence of its ownership beyond stock 
certificates and "a detailed list of owners and their percentages of ownership." However, the Petitioner 
not only provided stock certificates (which in and of themselves reflect asserted percentages of 
ownership), but further submitted written consents of its directors, meeting minutes, a stock ledger, a 
1 The petition was filed in May 2019. 
2 As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are not sufficient evidence 
to determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a corporate entity. The corporate stock certificate 
ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings must also be 
examined to determine the total number of shares issued, the exact number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent 
percentage ownership and its effect on corporate control. In addition, a petitioning company must disclose all agreements 
relating to the voting of shares, the distribution of profit, the management and direction of the subsidiary, and any other 
factor affecting control of the entity. See Matter ofSiemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 l&N Dec. at 365. 
2 
detailed list of owners, articles of incorporation, IRS Forms 1120 U.S. Corporate Tax Returns from 
2018 through 2023, and other bank documentation it claims reflect consideration paid for stocks in the 
company. The Director did not sufficiently analyze this evidence submitted in response to the request 
for evidence (RFE) and in support of the motion to reopen. In addition, the Director stated the 
Petitioner did not establish that the foreign employer still existed and continued to do business, but 
again did not discuss any of the provided documentary evidence specific to the foreign employer, 
including numerous foreign employer invoices and financial documents. As such, on remand, the 
Director should sufficiently consider all the submitted evidence on the record, including that submitted 
on appeal, to determine whether the Petitioner had, and still has, a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
Further, beyond the Director's decisions, we also conclude the Petitioner did not provide sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity. The Petitioner submitted a generic foreign duty description for the Beneficiary that could 
apply to any manager or executive acting in a business and little detail and supporting documentation 
to substantiate that he primarily performed managerial or executive level duties abroad. 3 For instance, 
the Beneficiary's foreign duty description includes no specific discussion of its actual business abroad. 
The Petitioner also did not clearly indicate whether the Beneficiary qualified as a manager or executive 
abroad, or both. 4 In addition, the Petitioner submitted numerous foreign employer invoices reflecting 
his name dated over several years, suggesting his substantial involvement in the foreign employer's 
day-to-day transactions and his primary engagement in non-qualifying operational duties abroad. In 
contrast, there is little evidence to substantiate his primary performance of qualifying managerial or 
executive-level duties abroad. 5 Therefore, the Petitioner did not properly establish that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
We will therefore withdraw that decision and remand the matter for a new decision that properly 
considers the evidence of record with respect to whether the Petitioner had a qualifying relationship 
with the Beneficiary's foreign employer and whether he was employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
3 When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary abroad, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the beneficiary's foreign job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties performed by the beneficiary abroad and indicate whether such duties were in a managerial or executive capacity. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). Although we do not expect a petitioner to articulate and document every managerial or executive­
level task performed by a beneficiary abroad, it is reasonable to require that it would provide sufficient detail and 
documentation to sufficiently corroborate his performance of qualifying duties. Specifics are clearly an important 
indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial or executive in nature, otherwise meeting the 
definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
4 A petitioner claiming that a beneficiary will perform as a "hybrid" manager/executive will not meet its burden of proof 
unless it has demonstrated that the beneficiary was primarily engaged in either managerial or executive capacity duties. See 
section 101(a)(44)(A)-(B) of the Act. While in some instances there may be duties that could quality as both managerial 
and executive in nature, it is the petitioner's burden to establish that the beneficiary's duties meet each criteria set forth in 
the statutory definition for either managerial or executive capacity. A petition may not be approved if the evidence of 
record does not establish that the beneficiary was primarily employed abroad in either a managerial or executive capacity. 
5 Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial or executive employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden 
of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial or executive. See sections 10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
3 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4