remanded EB-1C Case: Online Advertising

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-1-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 30, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of online advertising services, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its vice president of product engineering under the first preference immigrant 
classification for multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(I)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to 
permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and that he would be employed in 
the United States in a managerial capacity. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
provide sufficient job descriptions to support its claims. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director addressed only limited portions of the provided job 
descriptions and ignored the 25 duties listed to describe the Beneficiary's position abroad and the 31 
duties that were attributed to the Beneficiary's proposed position in the United States. It also points 
to the subordinate managers and professional employees that the Beneficiary managed abroad and 
would continue to manage in his proposed position with the U.S. entity. 
Upon de novo review, we tlnd that the Petitioner submitted sutlicient evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary was and would be, more likely than not, employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision. 
Notwithstanding our favorable determination regarding the grounds for denial, we find that the 
record as presently constituted does not establish that the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's employer 
abroad have the required qualifying relationship, as claimed. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the tiling 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 
.
Matter of E-1-, Inc. 
executive services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affilia te. Section 203(b)(I )(C) of the 
Act. 
The. Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a stat ement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the bene ficiary 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 busine ss for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3 ). 
II. BASIS FOR REMAND 
As previousl y noted , we find that the Peti tioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that 
it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary ' s foreign emp loyer. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship " under the Act and the regulation s, a petitioner must show 
that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. , 
one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See 
generally section 203(b )(I )(C) of the Act; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(j ). The Peti tioner must sup port its 
assertions with relevant, probative , and credible evidence. See Matter (~ f Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
369, 376 (AAO 201 0). . 
In a supporting cover letter, the Petitioner stated that it and the 
Beneficiary ' s foreign employer , have a parent-subsidiary relationship , where the Petitioner is the 
maj ority owner of the foreign entit y. The term " subsidiary" is deti ned as a firm , corporation or 
other legal entity of which a parent own s, directly or indirectl y, more than half of the entit y and 
control s the entity ; or owns , dire ctly or indirectl y, half of the entit y and control s the entit y; or owns , 
directly or indirectly 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power over 
the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly , less than half of the entity, but in fact control s the entit y. 
8 C. F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
The record includes the forei gn entit y's At1icles of Association , which lists and 
as the company's two director s, and its Memorandum of Association, which includes section 
V entitled listing the as owner of 9,999 shar es and as 
owner of one share ofthe foreign entity. The record does not contain evidenc e to show that majority 
ownership of the foreign entity was transferred to the Petiti oner to form a parent-subsidiar y 
relationship, nor does the record contain evidence to show that owns the majorit y of 
the Petitioner's stock so that the two entiti es can be deemed aftili ates. 1 Rather, the Peti tioner 
provided a summar y report of its owner ship , which shows that it has no maj ority owner. The report 
1 The tenn "affiliate" is defined, in relevant part, as (I) one of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled 
by the same parent or individual, or (2) one of two legal entities owned by the same group of individuals, each individual 
owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity. 8 C. F. R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
2 
.
Maller of £-1-. Inc. 
shows that and trustees of the own 49.685% of 
the Petitioner's stock , four other individua ls own between I % and 7% of the Petitioner 's stock, and 
over I 00 minority owners, eac h owning less than 1% of the Petition er' s stock. Althoug h the 
Petitioner's 2015 tax return , Schedule G, name s as 81 % owne r of its sha res, this 
information is inconsistent with the ownership report, which shows an en tirely different ownership 
scheme. The Petitioner must reso lve this incongruity in the reco rd with indepe ndent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Maller of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). In 
any event, even if the Petitioner is able to resolve the inconsistency regarding its own ownersh ip, the 
record does not show that the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer have either a parent ­
subsidiary relationship or that the two entit ies are affiliates pursuant to the relev ant definitions. 
Accordingly , we hereb y withdraw the Director ' s decision and remand this matter for further 
consideration and entry of a new deci sion. The Director should request any additio nal evidence 
deemed necessa ry to determin e the Petitioner's eligibility and allow the Pet itioner to submit such 
evidence within a reasonable period of time . 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the ent ry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter of E-1-, inc., ID# 1208404 (AAO May 30, 2018) 
3