remanded EB-1C Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-N- LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 26,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an investment company and convenience store operator, seeks to permanently employ 
the Beneficiary as its managing director under the first preference immigrant classification for 
multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(I )(C), 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(I )(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: (I) it is doing business in the United States; (2) it has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer; and (3) the Beneficiary would be employed in the 
United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Upon de novo review, we find that the Director's first finding was erroneous based on the record, 
which contains sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner has been and would be doing 
business as defined in the regulations.' Therefore, we hereby withdraw the first finding. We further 
note that the Director's denial decision and the previously issued notice of intent to deny (NOlO) 
both reference "derogatory information" of which "the [P]etitioner may be unaware'' without 
specifically identifying the derogatory information. If the denial is based on derogatory evidence or 
information that is not part of the record, the Director must identify the evidence or information with 
specificity and allow the Petitioner the opportunity to address and overcome any adverse findings 
that may result from it. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i). Lastly, while the record currently does not 
warrant sustaining the appeal, we find that the Director's decision was conclusory regarding the two 
remaining grounds for denial. The Director 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). Accordingly, we will 
withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further consideration, and issuance of a 
new decision consistent with our discussion below. 
1 
The record includes numerous tax filings and business invoices that show the Petitioner was engaged in the regular. 
systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services for at least one year at the time it filed the petition. See 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.50)(2) and 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D). 
.
Matter of S-N- LLC 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a 
beneficiary under section 203(b)(1)(C) ofthe Act as a multinational executive or manager. The petition 
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. 
§ 204.5G)(3). 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
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 that they are 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). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet its burden of establishing that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's last foreign employer, The 
Director made three observations that led to this conclusion: (I) the Beneficiary signed the foreign 
entity's supporting statement; (2) the Petitioner did not establish ''who will replace the [B]eneticiary for 
the foreign employer"; and (3) the Petitioner listed a residential address on its tax return, which "lists no 
documentation related to a foreign entity." 
The Petitioner in this matter claims to have an affiliate relationship with In order to 
establish that an affiliate relationship exists within the context of this visa petition, the Petitioner must 
establish that its ownership scheme fits one of two scenarios: ( 1) it and are subsidiaries 
that are owned and controlled by the same individual or parent entity; or (2) it and are two 
legal entities that are owned and controlled by the same goup of individuals with each individual 
owning and controlling approximately the same portion of each entity. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary owns 50% of the foreign entity and and l 00% of 
which owns 50% of the Petitioner. The Petitioner states that, as a result, the Beneficiary 
ultimately owns 50% of both companies, thus giving him ownership and control of both the Petitioner 
and 
2 
.
Matter ojS-N- LLC 
However, the record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing that the Beneficiary owns 50% of 
as claimed. While the Petitioner's supporting evidence includes 
Memorandum of Association, which names the Beneficiary as one of the entity's two directors, this 
document does not speak to the issue of ownership and does not establish that the company's directors 
are also its owners. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Here, the only evidence 
submitted to establish ownership is a statement from the Petitioner and a statement from 
both of which were signed by the Beneficiary. 
While the Beneficiary's claims are not sufficient to establish ownership, the Director did 
not evaluate the evidence of ownership before concluding that the requisite qualifying relationship does 
not exist. Rather, he based his conclusion on observations that appear to have no bearing on whether 
the Petitioner and have sufficient common ownership and control. 
As the matter will be remanded, the Director should request additional evidence to establish whether the 
Petitioner has the requisite qualifYing relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director also provided a deficient analysis to explain his conclusion that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. Although the 
Director referred to several documents that the Petitioner provided initially in support of the petition 
and later in response to the NOID, he did not specifically address the evidence or explain how it led 
to the conclusion that "the [P]etitioner lacks the organizational complexity to warrant the 
employment of the [B]eneficiary in a primarily executive or managerial capacity."' The Director also 
did not sufficiently explain why an adverse decision should result from the Petitioner's corporate 
hierarchy being "primarily composed of non-professional employees. '' 
While the record contains an organizational chart that indicates that the Petitioner employs cashiers 
and lower level managers at its eight convenience store operations, the chart depicts the Beneficiary 
at the top of the organization with a regional manager, four district managers , and eight store 
managers separating the Beneficiary from an undisclosed number of cashiers that are presumably the 
nonprofessional employees whom the Director referenced in the denial. However , the submitted 
chart is undated and therefore raises questions as to whether it is an accurate depiction of the 
Petitioner's organization as it existed at the time this petition was filed. The chart also does not 
name any of the managers, with the exception of the regional manager who was identified as the 
Beneficiary's direct subordinate, and it does not specifically indicate how many employees work at 
each store location. Finally, the record lacks any wage documents identifying the Petitioner's 
employees at the time of filing. The Director did not adequately notify the Petitioner of these 
deficiencies in the NOlO or request for evidence. 
Matter ofS-N- LLC 
In addition, we find that the job description the Petitioner provided lacks sufficient detailed 
information about the job duties the Beneficiary would perform on a daily basis. The Director 
should address all of these evidentiary deficiencies on remand. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, this matter will be remanded, and the Director is instructed to 
inform the Petitioner of any derogatory evidence of which the Petitioner may be unaware. The 
Director should also clarify the ambiguities described above, request any additional evidence 
deemed necessary to determine the Petitioner's eligibility, and allow the Petitioner to submit such 
evidence within a reasonable period of time. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter ofS-N- LLC, ID# 619214 (AAO Oct. 26, 2017) 
4