remanded EB-1C

remanded EB-1C Case: Cosmetics

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 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

Qualifying Relationship Successor-In-Interest

Sign up free to download the original PDF

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 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

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.