remanded EB-1C Case: Technology

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.W., MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)oftheImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice that originally decidedyour case.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquiry thatyou mighthaveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe law was inappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.The
specific requirementsfor filing such a requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be
submittedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing aFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a feeof $630. Pleasebeawarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbe filed
within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
erryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The preferencevisa petitionwas deniedby the Director,NebraskaServiceCenter. The
matteris nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) onappeal.Thematterwill beremandedfor
furtherconsideration.
The petitionerwas organizedas a limited liability companyon June3, 2005 in the Stateof Delaware. It
currently seeksto employ the beneficiary as its presidentand chief technical officer. Accordingly, the
petitioner endeavorsto classify the beneficiary as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asa multinational
executiveor manager.
Lookingto thestatuteandthecommonlawdefinitionof employee,thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitioner
failed to establishthat the prospectiveU.S. employer and the beneficiary have an employer-employee
relationshipanddeniedthepetition in a decisiondatedJune8, 2009. Thedirector'sconclusionwasprimarily
basedontwo observations:(1) thebeneficiaryis a founderof thepetitioningentityandis alsotheinventorof
thetechnologythepetitioningentityuses;and(2) thebeneficiaryis unlikely to befired by his spouse.
After reviewingtherecordin its entirety,theAAO findsthatwhile thedirector'sobservationsarefactually
correct,they do not warrantthe adversefinding that resultedin the denial of the petition. In light of the
AAO's determination,thedirector'sdecisionwill bewithdrawn.
Notwithstandingthe withdrawalof the director's decision,the AAO finds that the recordas presently
constituteddoesnot establishthat thepetitioneris eligiblefor theimmigrationbenefitsought.
First, it is notedthat,despitethe factthatthepetitionerwasorganizedin the Stateof Delaware,thepetitioner
statedin a supportingstatementdatedMay 3, 2007that its headquartersandmanufacturingfacility arebased
in the State of Illinois. However, accordingto the Illinois Departmentof Corporationsrecords, the
petitioner's statusin Illinois was revokedon January8, 2010.1 The AAO thereforefinds that additional
evidenceis requiredto establishthat the U.S. entity continuesto engagein the "theregular,systematic,and
continuousprovisionof goodsand/orservices"sufficientto showthatthepetitioneris doingbusiness.8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D).
Next, the record doesnot containadequatedocumentationto establishthat the petitioner hasa qualifying
relationshipwith the beneficiary'sforeign employer. To establisha "qualifying relationship"underthe Act
andtheregulations,thepetitionermustshowthat thebeneficiary'sforeignemployer,i.e..
andtheproposedU.S.employerarethe sameemployer(i.e.a U.S.entitywith a foreignoffice) or relatedasa
"parentandsubsidiary"or as"affiliates."Seegenerally§203(b)(1)(C)of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C);
seealso8C.F.R.§204.5(j)(2)(providingdefinitionsof theterms"affiliate"and"subsidiary").
Theregulationat 8C.F.R.§204.5(j)(2)statesin pertinentpart:
Affiliate means:
(A) Oneof two subsidiariesbothof whichareownedandcontrolledby thesameparentor
individual;
Seehttp://www.ilsos.gov/corporatelle/CorporateLlcController.
Page3
(B) Oneof two legal entitiesownedandcontrolledby the samegroupof individuals,each
individual owning andcontrollingapproximatelythe sameshareor proportionof each
entity;
* * *
Subsidiarymeansa firm, corporation,or otherlegalentity of which a parentowns,directly or
indirectly, morethanhalf of theentity andcontrolstheentity; or owns,directly or indirectly,
halfof theentityandcontrolstheentity;orowns,directlyor indirectly,50percentof a50-50
joint ventureand has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or
indirectly,lessthanhalf of theentity,but in factcontrolstheentity.
Accordingto Exhibit B of the operatingagreement,which wasexecutedon May 25, 2005andwasinitially
submittedin supportof theForm I-140, therewereoriginally sevenpartieswith an ownershipinterestin the
petitioning entity with no one party owning a majority interest,i.e., 51% or more. The petitioner also
submitteda documenttitled "Certificateof OperatingAgreementandRelatedMattersfor
which was executedon May 31, 2006 and which indicatesthat the foreign entity and the
beneficiary'sspouseeachowns45% of the petitioningentity while ownsthe
remaining10%. While both documentsindicatethatthebeneficiary'sforeignemployerhasa 45%ownership
interestin the petitioning entity, they do not establishthat thebeneficiary'sforeign employerand the U.S.
petitioner have a parent-subsidiaryrelationship under the regulatory definition of subsidiary. Id.
Furthermore,the degreeof commonownershipbetweenthe two entities doesnot rise to the level of an
affiliate relationshipundersubsectionsA or B of theregulatorydefinition for affiliate. Id.
In light of the above,the AAO finds that additionaldocumentationis requiredin orderto establishthat the
requisitequalifyingrelationshipexistsbetweenthepetitionerandthebeneficiary'semployerabroad.
Lastly, in orderto establisheligibility, thepetitionermustprovideevidenceto showthat thebeneficiarywas
employedabroadand would be employedin the United Statesin a qualifying managerialor executive
capacity.Section203(b)(1)(C)of theAct. Theregulationat 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5)requiresthepetitionerto
furnisha job offer in the form of a statementwhich indicatesthat the alien is to be employedin the United
Statesin a managerialor executivecapacity. Such a statementmust clearly describethe duties to be
performedby thealien.
While the AAO acknowledgesthat no beneficiaryis requiredto allocate100%of his time to managerial-or
executive-leveltasks, the petitioner must establishthat the non-qualifying tasks the beneficiary would
performareonly incidentalto his/herproposedposition. An employeewho"primarily"performsthetasks
necessaryto producea productor to provideservicesis not consideredto be "primarily" employedin a
managerialor executivecapacity. Seesections101(a)(44)(A)and (B) of the Act (requiring that one
"primarily"performtheenumeratedmanagerialor executiveduties);seealsoMatterof ChurchScientology
International,19I&N Dec.593,604(Comm.1988).
The statementsprovided to describethe beneficiary's position with the foreign entity and his proposed
positionwith the U.S.petitionerlack sufficientinformationaboutthebeneficiary'sspecificday-to-dayduties
Page4
to establishthat the beneficiaryhasbeenand would be employedin a primarily managerialor executive
capacity.
While the director's original decisiondenyingthe petition must be withdrawn,the recordas presently
constituteddoesnotestablishthatthepetitionmeritsapproval.Thedirectoris thereforeinstructedto issuea
requestfor evidencein an effort to elicit thenecessaryinformationanddeterminewhetherthepetition meets
therelevantstatutoryandregulatoryrequirements.Thedirectormayalsorequestanyotherevidencethat he
may deem necessaryin order to establishthe petitioner's eligibility to classify the beneficiary as a
multinationalmanageror executive.
ORDER: The decision of the director dated June 8, 2009 is withdrawn. The matter is
remandedfor furtheractionandconsiderationconsistentwith theabovediscussion.