remanded EB-1C Case: Maintenance And Cleaning Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-M-O-F- INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 11, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a maintenance and cleaning service, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as 
its "Executives & Managers" 1 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 Beneficiary "does 
not meet the qualification requirement of this classification" because he would not be an "employee" 
of the United States employer. The Director determined that the Petitioner is a corporation, which 
"claims is majority owned and ultimately controlled by the beneficiary, who purports to assume a role 
as the petitioner's principal." 
On appeal, 2 the Petitioner asserts that it is a legal corporation that is majority owned and controlled by 
a board of directors, not by the Beneficiary. It further states that the Beneficiary is not the employer 
and will not set the rules that will govern his work or share in the company's profits and losses. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Director offered an analysis that did not accurately reflect the 
evidence on record regarding the Beneficiary's ownership of the U.S. entity. As the Director's analysis 
was premised, in large part, on the incorrect determination that the Beneficiary is a majority owner of 
the Petitioner, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further proceedings 
consistent with our discussion below. 
1 The Form 1-140. Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, lists the Beneficiary's proposed position title as "Executives & 
Managers." The Petitioner's filings do not provide a specific position title for the Beneficiary's prospective employment. 
We also note that the form does not provide the Beneficiary's complete name. According to a copy of the Beneficiary's 
passport, his full name isl I The form lists his name as only .__ ______ __, 
2 Although the Petitioner provided a signed and completed Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or 
Accredited Representative, the attorney who signed the fonn.l I indicated at Part 3, No. 5 of the form that 
she was entering her appearance as a representative of the "Applicant," not the "Petitioner," which is the party that filed 
this appeal. A beneficiary is not the "party affected" in a visa petition and therefore does not have standing to file an 
appeal in these proceedings. See Matter of Dabaase, 16 l&N Dec. 720 (BIA 1979); Matter of Sano, 19 l&N Dec. 299 
(BIA 1985). 
Matter of C-M-O-F-, Inc. 
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 
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(j)(3). 
II. BASIS FOR REMAND 
As noted earlier, we find that the Director's decision did not accurately reflect the facts and the 
evidence presented with regard to the Beneficiary's ownership of the U.S. entity, which the record 
shows is majority owned by the foreign entity, not by the Beneficiary himself. Further, the record 
contains evidence showing that the Beneficiary has no ownership interest at all in the foreign entity, 
which is 90% owned b~ I and 10% by~------~ As such, 
the determination that the Beneficiary is not an "employee" of the Petitioner because he owns and 
controls that entity is incorrect. 
Notwithstanding the Director's error, the record as presently constituted does not establish that the 
Petitioner met all applicable eligibility requirements. Namely, the Petitioner's electronic filing of this 
petition was not followed by the submission of any supporting evidence. Despite indicating that it 
seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a manager or executive, the Petitioner did not disclose the title of 
the position being offered or provide the required job offer clearly describing the Beneficiary's 
proposed job duties. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the 
employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 
41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The Petitioner also did not provide the required supporting statement 
demonstrating that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity and 
that the Petitioner had been doing business for at least one year as of the date this petition was filed. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3). 3 
Although a request for evidence (RFE) was issued with regard to the Petitioner's most recent filing, 
that RFE did not address the deficiencies specified above and no farther evidence has been submitted 
to establish that the Petitioner had been doing business for at least one year prior to filing this petition 
3 The record shows that the Petitioner filed a Form T-140 (with receipt no.I ~ in October 2010, 
approximately 20 months prior to filing this petition. However, that petition was denied and no appeal was filed. That 
petition, along with the supporting evidence and the Petitioner's response to a request for evidence issued regarding that 
filing, indicates that the issue pertaining to the Beneficiary's foreign employment was not adequately addressed. As such, 
even ifwe were to rely on evidence associated with the previously filed petition, that evidence still would not be sufficient 
to establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
2 
Matter of C-M-O-F-, Inc. 
or that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Although the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to meet its burden of establishing that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity and that the U.S. operation had been doing 
business for the one year prior to filing this petition, the Director's decision did not adequately analyze 
the facts of the matter and apply the law. As the Director did not satisfy this condition, we will remand 
the matter for entry of a new decision. 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 farther 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter ofC-M-O-F-, Inc., ID# 4380004 (AAO July 11, 2019) 
3