remanded EB-1C Case: Hospitality

MATTER OF A-M-, L.L.C. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 14, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, which operates a hotel, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its "public 
matter director" 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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Texas 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred by issuing a 
decision contrary to established case law. 
Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further 
proceedings and for the entry of a new decision. 
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 I-140 to classifY a beneficiary under section 203(b)(l)(C) of 
the 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 is 
coming to work in the United States for the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign 
employer. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(3)(i)(C). 
Matter of A-M-, L.L.C. 
II. WITHDRAWAL OF GROUND FOR DENIAL 
The Director denied the petition based solely on a finding that the Petitioner had not established a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
additional documentation intended to clarify the ownership and control of the two companies. 
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 regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) define the relevant terms. Generally, the term "affiliate" 
means 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. The 
same regulation defines a "subsidiary" as an entity with a parent which controls the entity and, 
directly or indirectly, owns all or part of the entity. 
In this instance, the Petitioner showed that four individuals (one of whom is the Beneficiary) 
indirectly own 100% of the foreign entity through their ownership of five intermediate companies. 
The same four individuals own 50% of the petitioning U.S. entity through a network of trusts. The 
Petitioner asserted that this 50% ownership amounts to "negative control" of the U.S. entity, as 
described in Matter of Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362, 364 (Comm'r 1986). 
The Director found that no one owns a majority interest in either the foreign entity or the petitioning 
U.S. entity, and noted that two companies with an ownership stake in the petitioning company do not 
own any part of the foreign entity. The Director therefore concluded that the Petitioner and the 
foreign company do not qualify as affiliates because they are not "owned and controlled by the same 
group of individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or 
proportion of each entity." 
The Director's decision was correct based on the evidence previously submitted. U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) does not accept a combination of individual shareholders as a 
single entity, so that the group may claim majority ownership, unless the group members have been 
shown to be legally bound together as a unit within the company by voting agreements or proxies. 1 
1 The Petitioner must establish that it and the foreign employer share common ownership and control. Control may be 
"de jure" by reason of ownership of 51 percent of outstanding stocks of the other entity or it may be "de facto" by reason 
of control of voting shares through partial ownership and possession of proxy votes. Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 
289 (Comm'r 1982). 
2 
Matter of A-M-, L.L.C. 
However, on appeal, the Petitioner documents voting trust agreements showing that the same 
individual has de facto control over the foreign and U.S. entities. That individual is also the trustee _i 
for each of the trusts held by the family members in the United States. The Petitioner asserts that, 
because this individual indirectly owns part of both entities, and controls those entities, the 
companies have the requisite qualifying relationship. The voting trust agreements pre-date the filing 
of the petition and the Petitioner has provided a reasonable explanation for not submitting them 
previously. 
Upon review, we find the newly submitted evidence sufficient to overcome the Director's 
objections. The Petitioner has established sufficient common ownership and control to establish the 
claimed qualifying relationship. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAP A CITY 
Although the Petitioner has overcome the original basis for denial, there are questions about the 
Beneficiary's intended U.S. employment which preclude approval of the petition based on the current 
record. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5G)(5) requires the Petitioner to submit a statement which indicates 
that the Beneficiary is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity as 
defined at section 101(a)(44) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44). The statement must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed by th~ Beneficiary. 
In this instance, the Petitioner's statement included a list of 14 responsibilities. Some. of these 
appear to have been copied directly from the list of tasks performed by "Public Relations and 
Fundraising Managers" on the Department of Labor-sponsored O*NET Online database. 2 The 
requirement for a detailed job description becomes meaningless if a petition can satisfy it by copying 
and pasting from templates or other public sources. The Petitioner must submit a list of the 
Beneficiary's actual duties within the context of its business. 
One of the copied items reads: "Manage special events, such as sponsorship of races, parties 
introducing new products, or other activities the firm supports, to gain public attention through the 
media without advertising directly." The Petitioner does not show that the company has sponsored 
races, held parties to introduce new products, or, as a hotel, has products that would require 
promotion in that way. 
Another line item reads: "Coordinate the prov1s10n of media for communication purpose, 
publicizing of social events, academic achievements of the Board." This does not derive from 
O*NET, but the reference to "academic achievements of the Board" has no evident relevance to 
hotel management. The same appears to be true of another item, which refers to "cooperative 
relationships with ... faith based organizations." 
2 See https://www.onetonline.org/link!summary/11-2031.00 (last visited June 2, 20 17). 
3 
Matter of A-M-, L.L.C. 
With regard to the Petitioner's staffing, the Petitioner claimed 22 U.S. employees on Form I-140. 
The Petitioner's organizational chart, however, shows 13 departments plus other divisions, which 
appears to be unrealistically complex for a company of the Petitioner's size. We note that, while the 
Petitioner has submitted a job description centered on public relations and promotions, the 
organizational chart does not show that the Beneficiary has authority over the public relations or 
marketing departments. Instead, the Petitioner claims . that the Beneficiary oversees five other 
departments: Personnel & Training, IT, Food & Drinks, Communications, and General Services. 
The Beneficiary's job description lacks detail and includes what appear to be irrelevant or 
inapplicable duties. Also, the job duties do not match the areas of responsibilities shown on the 
Petitioner's organizational chart. Therefore, the Petitioner's initial submission does not establish 
that the Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. Because 
this issue did not arise in the request for evidence or the denial notice, the Petitioner has not yet had 
an opportunity to address these deficiencies in the record. 
With respect to the Petitioner's staffing, it is important to note that the Petitioner filed another Form 
I-140 petition in March 2012 on behalf of a different beneficiary. USCIS approved that petition, but 
later revoked the approval after it became evident that the Petitioner had misrepresented its staffing. 
Therefore, if the Director requests additional evidence regarding the Petitioner's personnel, the 
Director must specify that the evidence be credible and independently verifiable. Personnel lists and 
organizational charts alone, for instance, would not be sufficient evidence. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing discussion, although we will withdraw the Director's decision, the record 
does not establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
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, 
which, if adverse, shall be certified to us for review. 
Cite as Matter of A-M-, L.L.C., ID# 389733 (AAO June 14, 2017) 
4