remanded EB-1C Case: Cosmetics
Decision Summary
The Director denied the petition because the beneficiary's original foreign employer was legally dissolved following a merger, which was thought to break the required qualifying relationship. The AAO remanded the case, citing a recent adopted decision that introduced the concept of a 'successor-in-interest'. The Director must now re-evaluate whether the entity that absorbed the original employer qualifies as a successor, which could re-establish the qualifying relationship.
Criteria Discussed
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Re: 9433798 Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office Date : OCT . 5, 2020 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives The Petitioner, a cosmetics manufacturer, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a manager and principal scientist 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. § l 153(b)(l)(C). The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish, as required, that the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 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 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with our discussion below. I. LAW 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). II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer at the time of filing. 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)(l)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C). The Beneficiary began working as a project manager/formula development engineer for the French company! I in 2012. She later entered the United States as an L-lA nonimmigrant on January 9, 2016, under a blanket L petition that listedl I and I I among the foreign entities that have a qualifying relationship with the petitioning U.S. employer. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(4). The Petitioner filed its immigrant petition on the Beneficiary's behalf in March 2019 . .__ _ _.12017 annual report, in the record, shows thatl I acquired! J I in April 2015 as a wholly-owned subsidiary. Translated documentation m the record shows that, on December 18, 2015, I !"decided to dissolv§by ... a full transfer of the assets ofl I without liquidating said company." called the transaction a "dissolution-merger," effective January 1, 2016. As a result, 's assets remained within the overall organization, but I I ceased to exist as a legal entity in its own right. The Director denied the petition, stating that, because I I ceased to exist as a legal entity in 2016, it could not have had a qualifying relationship with the Petitioner in 2019. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that. because the larger multinational organization (including D I I which absorbed all ofl l's assets) continues to operate abroad, the Beneficiary remains eligible for the classification sought. A recent adopted decision addresses a fact pattern that is similar to the case before us: In the event a corporate restructuring affecting the foreign entity occurs prior to the filing of a first preference multinational executive or manager petition, a petitioner may establish that the beneficiary's qualifying foreign employer continues to exist and do business through a valid successor entity. If these conditions are met, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] will consider the successor-in-interest to be the same entity that employed the beneficiary abroad. Matter of F-M- Co., Adopted Decision 2020-01 5 (AAO May 5, 2020). That decision also states that the post-merger entity qualifies as a successor-in-interest if it "owns and controls the original foreign employer's property, has assumed its rights and duties, and carries on the same business with no change in substance" and remains "part of the same multinational organization." Id. The new adopted decision provides guidance that was not available at the time the Director denied the petition in October 2019. We will therefore remand this matter for a new decision that takes Matter of F-M- Co. into account. The record establishes that I lis part of the same multinational organization as the petitioning U.S. employer. To meet the requirements set forth in F-M- Co., the Petitioner must establish thatl I continues to own and control I I's assets, and carries on the same business asi Fith no change in substance. For example, the Petitioner could 2 establish thatl ~ continues to operate thel I brand and continues to employ~! __ ~ls former staff: and did not simply absorb and redistribute or selll ts assets. As the matter will be remanded, the Director should request any additional evidence deemed warranted 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 the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 3
Draft your EB-1C petition with AAO precedents
MeritDraft uses real AAO decisions to generate compliant petition arguments tailored to your evidence.
Sign Up Free →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.