remanded EB-1C Case: Import And Wholesale Trading

U.S. Citizenship 
and In1n1igration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-T-D-C-LTD 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 27, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SER VICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an import and wholesale trading company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its general manager 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 Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) it has made a bona fide offer of full-time employment in the United 
States; (2) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and (3) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred by 
concluding that the Beneficiary has been and would be concurrently employed by the Petitioner and 
its foreign parent company. The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
managerial capacity from 2008 until 2015, has been employed by the Petitioner in a managerial 
capacity in L-lA nonimmigrant status since 2015, and would continue to serve in her current U.S. 
position on a permanent, full-time basis upon approval of this petition. 
Upon de nova review of the record, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter 
for entry of a new decision consistent with our discussion below. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 
Matter of H-T-D-C- Ltd 
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. § 204.50)(3). 
11. ANALYSIS 
When denying a petition, a director has an affirmative duty to explain the specific reasons for the 
denial; this duty includes informing a petitioner why the evidence did not satisfy its burden of proof 
pursuant to section 291 of the Act. 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). 
Upon review, we find that the Director provided inadequate reasoning to support a conclusion that 
"the beneficiary's U.S. position is not a bona fide job offer." Specifically, it appears that the 
Director mistakenly concluded that the Beneficiary has been and would be working for both the 
Petitioner and its claimed foreign parent company, and noted that the Petitioner "did not submit a 
timeline and schedules to establish the amount of time the beneficiary spends in each location" and 
evidence to demonstrate "who is in charge of each entity when the beneficiary is at the other 
location." 
Although the Petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity indicating that the Beneficiary had 
been serving as its deputy general manager since 2008, the evidence as a whole does not support a 
finding that she has been or would be dividing her time between the United States and China. In 
fact, the record shows that the Beneficiary had been in the United States continuously for nearly 
three years when this petition was filed. 
Because the Director determined that the Petitioner did not indicate "how much time the beneficiary 
is actually spending performing duties and tasks for the petitioner" as opposed to the foreign entity, 
the denial decision does not include a full analysis of the evidence the Petitioner submitted in 
support of its claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and would be employed in the United 
States, in a managerial capacity as defined at section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. 
l 10l(a)(44)(A). This evidence included organizational charts for both entities and position 
descriptions for subordinate employees, as well as payroll evidence. While agree with the Director's 
finding that the submitted job descriptions for the Beneficiary were overly broad, a determination 
regarding the Beneficiary's employment capacity must be based upon an analysis of the totality of 
the evidence. 
Due to the deficiencies noted, we are remanding this matter so that the Director can properly make 
the initial determination on the issue of the Beneficiary's U.S. and foreign employment capacity 
after a thorough review and analysis of the Petitioner's evidence. 
In addition, although not addressed in the Director's decision, we note that the record as presently 
constituted does not contain primary evidence of the Petitioner's ownership and control in support of 
2 
Matter of H-T-D-C- Ltd 
its claim that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The Petitioner 
claims to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the foreign entity, but did not submit copies of its articles 
of incorporation, by-laws, stock certificates, stock ledger, or evidence corroborating the purchase of 
its stock by the foreign entity. The Petitioner's federal tax return alone is insufficient to establish 
that it meets this eligibility requirement. 
Further, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that the foreign entity continues 
to do business in China. Specifically, the Petitioner submitted the foreign entity's expired business 
license, a business tax registration from 2013, and what appears to be an internally prepared "Assets 
Balance Sheet." This evidence does not establish that the foreign entity is actively doing business. 
Finally, we note that, according to the website of the California Secretary of State, the Petitioner's 
right to conduct business in the state has been suspended. See https://businessearch.sos.ca.gov, last 
accessed on March 18, 2019). The Petitioner will need to provide evidence that it is in good 
standing and continuing to do business as defined in the regulations. 
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. 
Cite as Matter ofH-T-D-C-Ltd, ID# 2753961 (AAO Mar. 27, 2019) 
3