remanded EB-1C Case: Retail And Investments

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 22672226 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 5, 2023 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a "mobile retail and investments" operation, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary 
as its operations manager 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 pennanently 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 Petitioner did not 
demonstrate, as required , the following eligibility criteria : 1) a qualifying relationship exists between the 
Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer; 2) the Petitioner had been doing business for at least 
one year prior to filing the instant petition; 3) the Petitioner is a multinational entity that does business in 
the United States and at least one other country; 4) the Beneficiary's proposed employment would be in 
a managerial capacity; and 5) the Beneficiary had qualifying employment abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which the Director 
dismissed. The Director listed the Petitioner 's submissions and the regulatory requirements of a motion 
to reconsider and concluded that the Petitioner did not meet those requirements because it did not offer 
new evidence or cite precedent caselaw. 
The matter is now before us on appeal, where we will consider arguments that relate to the Director's 
decision to deny the motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we conclude that the Director did not adequately explain the deficiencies in the evidence in 
conformance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i), and therefore, the Petitioner was not afforded a 
meaningful opportunity to challenge the adverse findings . By concluding that no new evidence was 
offered, the Director incorrectly indicated that the Petitioner must submit new evidence to meet the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider. 1 Further, by stating that the Petitioner cited no precedent 
caselaw in support of its motion, the Director did not adequately review or address the legal arguments 
put forth in the Petitioner's supporting brief In light of these deficiencies, we will withdraw the 
Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following 
analysis. 
Notwithstanding the above noted deficiencies, the Director's January 2021 decision identified a 
notable evidentiary deficiency pertaining to the Petitioner's claim that it is a subsidiary of I I I the foreign entity where the Beneficiary is claimed 
to have been employed in the three years that preceded the filing of this petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(2) (for definition of "subsidiary"). Namely, the Director pointed out that although the 
foreign entity and I I are claimed as the respective owners of 51 % and 49% of the 
Petitioner's issued shares, the Petitioner submitted tax returns that conflict with this ownership scheme 
in that they do not identify the foreign entity as having an ownership interest and instead listl I I landl las the Petitioner's owners. 
Regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities. See, 
e.g., Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Siemens Med. 
Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). 
Ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an entity with full 
power and authority to control; control means the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct 
the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 
I&N Dec. at 595. 
In the matter at hand, the Director correctly notified the Petitioner of an evidentiary discrepancy 
regarding its ownership. However, despite recognizing that the qualifying relationship issue served 
as a basis for denial, the Petitioner did not address or resolve that discrepancy on motion. See Matter 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) (stating that a petitioner must resolve any inconsistencies 
in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
Regardless, because the Director's decision did not adequately analyze the facts of the matter and 
apply the law, we cannot affirm that decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that the 
decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). 
2