remanded EB-1C Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7539233 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 24, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Executive or Manager 
The Petitioner, a provider of property and business management services, seeks to permanently employ 
the Beneficiary as its chief financial officer (CFO) 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)(l)(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 that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not thoroughly review the submitted evidence and 
erroneously applied the statutory definition of "managerial capacity" to the Beneficiary's proposed 
executive position. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will remand the matter to the 
Director for further consideration and entry of a new decision . 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An executive or manager who has worked abroad for at least one year may immigrate to the United 
States to continue to render executive or managerial services to the same employer, or a subsidiary or 
affiliate. Section 203(b )( 1 )(C) of the Act. If, as in this case, a beneficiary already works in the United 
States for a petitioner, the business must demonstrate that the beneficiary's year of foreign 
employment occurred in the three years preceding his or her entry as a nonimmigrant. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B). 
A petitioner for a multinational executive or manager must submit a statement from an authorized 
company official demonstrating that a beneficiary meets the requirements discussed above. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A)-(C). The statement must also establish that the petitioner has been doing business 
for at least one year. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(D). Further, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may request additional evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(ii). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT 
The Petitioner has consistently claimed that it will employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity as 
the CFO of its "Florida division." The Petitioner, an Iowa corporation, indicates that its branch office 
in Florida is responsible for providing management services to its claimed.__-,--___ ___, affiliate, 
I ..., I, and its related subsidiary and affiliated companies located 
in several Caribbean countries, where the group operates 18 pawn shops. The Petitioner indicates that 
its original office in Iowa provides similar management services to related U.S. companies. 
Although the Director's decision cites to the statutory definitions of both "managerial capacity" and 
"executive capacity" at section 10l(a)(44) of the Act, it also states, incorrectly, that the Petitioner 
claimed that the Beneficiary would be employed as a manager. We agree with the Petitioner's 
assertion that the Director did not review the Beneficiary's eligibility as an executive and solely 
focused on whether he would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
In addition, the Director's analysis of the evidence submitted in support of the petition did not appear 
to take into account the Beneficiary's lengthy position description or the Petitioner's explanation of 
its role in managing I I and its related entities. The denial decision contains limited references to 
specific evidence and appears to be based on the following observations: (1) "it is unclear if the 
beneficiary is employed by [ the Petitioner] or I ~, as some of the persons who report to him 
appear on thel brganizational chart; (2) two of the three U.S.-based employees who report to 
the Beneficiary do not have baccalaureate degrees; (3) the position description indicates the 
Beneficiary "will actively participate in the performance of non-qualifying duties"; and (4) "USCIS is 
unable to determine how the beneficiry cal be responsible for the financial activities" of operations 
located in Caribbean or employees of . 
The Director did not, however, identify what specific duties were determined to be "non-qualifying" 
or explain how the other noted deficiencies were relevant to the Petitioner's eligibility as an 
multinational executive. The Petitioner submitted a letter that allocated over three pages to describing 
the Beneficiary's position as CFO and the Director's decision devotes only one sentence to discussing 
those duties. An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow the 
Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful 
appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) 
(finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a 
meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter. On remand, the 
Director shall consider the arguments and evidence submitted by the Petitioner and analyze whether 
the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. 
With respect to the Director's concerns regarding the identity of the Petitioner's employer, we note 
that the Petitioner provided evidence that the Beneficiary works in its I I Florida office and was 
issued IRS Forms W-2 for the years 2016 through 2018. 
2 
However, there are some details of the working and financial relationship between the Petitioner, its 
"Florida division," andl lthat have not been adequately explained. For example, 
the Petitioner submitted bank statements for a Florida company called 'I t' that reflect 
substantial incoming fonds and payment of payroll, benefits and other operating expenses, but none 
of the Petitioner's statements, organizational charts or other supporting evidence mention this entity. 
Accordingly, it is unclear what role it plays in the overall organization, how it is related to the 
Petitioner and Beneficiary, and why its bank statements were provided. 
As the matter will be remanded, the Director may request additional evidence, such as a copy of the 
Beneficiary's employment contract with the Petitioner, the Petitioner's management agreement with 
I l evidence of payments made byLJfor management services provided by the Petitioner, and 
any other evidence deemed warranted. 
III. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
Although not addressed in the denial decision, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to 
establish that it maintains a qualifying relationship withLJ A U.S. petitioner seeking to employ a 
multinational executive or manager must establish a qualifying relationship between itself and a 
beneficiary's foreign employer. 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 employer (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 )(1 )(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
The Petitioner has consistently claimed a qualitying relationshio with ~ I based on common 
ownership of both com ni by the same two individuals, I I and_ I While it 
has at times referr'l'--"'----"'-'-L.-,_ _ _J as its subsidiary, we note that the Petitioner has not established that it 
owns any shares i ~-~ either directly, or indirectly through its ownership of a subsidiary company. 
Therefore, the Petitioner will need to submit evidence to establish an affiliate relationship. 1 
At the time of filing in September 201 7, the Petitioner stated that I I each owned 
50% of its issued stock. In addition, it submitted a "Register of ..... M __ e_m.....,b_e_r.....,s'..,...' ....,.fo-r-rl --....,li~ndicating that 
its 50,112 shares were distributed as follows: 
25,673 
18,430 
2,837 
1,814 
1,358 
1 An "affiliate" refers to: one of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or individual; 
or one of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, each individual owning and controlling 
approximately the same share or proportion of each entity. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). The term "subsidiary" means a firm, 
corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls 
the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent 
ofa 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less than half 
of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. Id. 
3 
The ownership structure described suggests that the Petitioner andD had an affiliate relationship 
based on common ownership byl I who was claimed to directly own 50% of the Petitioner 
and 51.23% ofl 12 If an individual owns and controls the Petitioner and the foreign entity, then the 
companies will be deemed to be affiliates under the definition even if the entities have multiple owners. 
However, in response to the Director's notice of intent to deny (NOID), the Petitioner submitted an 
updated "Summary of Share Breakdown" for I I indicating that the foreign entity's ownership 
structure had changed in 2017 to the following: 
45,917 
2,837 
1,358 
The Petitioner stated that 'I I .=an....,d .... l ____ ___._l! ..... t...,.h....,ro ... u-op,h their Iowa legal entity,~!--~ 
D own 91.63% of foreign subsidiary J,_ ______ ==-~t' 
In determining whether a qualifying relationship exists, USCIS must examine the individuals or 
entities that own and control the U.S. and foreign employers. Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 
I&N Dec. 593, 595 (Comm'r 1988). Here, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient supporting 
evidence to corroborate its own ownership or the owne~ship orl l which is critical to 
determining whether it has a qualifying relationship wit . For example, the Petitioner did not 
submit copies of its own stock certificates, articles of incorporation or other evidence of its ownership, 
nor did it submit any comparable evidence forl I In addition, the Petitioner's NOID 
response did not provide an updated member register fo~ I reflecting the changes in that 
company's ownership, or corroborating evidence such as copies of stock or membership certificates 
the company has issued. 
On remand, the Petitioner should be given an opportunity to submit additional evidence of the 
ownership and control of all entities involved to corroborate its claim that it maintains a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Director's decision did not adequately evaluate the Beneficiary's eligibility as an executive or 
address deficiencies in the record relating to the Petitioner's qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer, we will remand the matter to the Director for farther consideration. 
The Director should request any additional evidence deemed necessary and allow the Petitioner a 
reasonable time to respond. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2 The Petitioner also claimed thatc=] and,,_I ___ __.I own .... I ___ ___.I and ~I ----~I but did not provide 
evidence of ownership for those claimed affiliates. 
4