remanded EB-1C Case: Telecommunications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 21, 2024 In Re: 28819452 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a multinational provider of telecommunication services, seeks to permanently employ 
the Beneficiary as its "Chief Revenue Officer" 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)(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that: (1) the Petitioner and the Beneficiary foreign employer have a qualifying relationship; 
(2) the Beneficiary's proposed employment would be in a managerial capacity; and (3) the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad was in a managerial capacity. 1 The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
the Director did not correctly assess the evidence regarding the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed 
employment in a managerial capacity. The Director also did not offer a complete and accurate analysis 
of the submitted evidence concerning the issue of the Petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship with 
the Beneficiary's foreign employer. We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and remand 
the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the analysis 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. 
1 The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary 's position abroad and his proposed position in the United States both fit the 
definition of managerial capacity. 
The Form I-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(i)(3). 
II. BASIS FOR REMAND 
As noted earlier, the Director's decision did not adequately explain the deficiencies in the evidence. 
See 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). 
A. Foreign and U.S. Employment in a Managerial Capacity 
First, we will address the issues concerning the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed employment. 
Contrary to the Director's determination on the issue of the Beneficiary's managerial capacity in his 
foreign and proposed positions, we find that the Petitioner has adequately supported its claims with 
detailed job duty breakdowns for both positions, as well as adequately detailed job descriptions and 
professional credentials of the Beneficiary's subordinates. The Petitioner also provided numerous 
organizational charts showing that in both of his positions the Beneficiary has and would continue to 
occupy top-level positions within complex organizational hierarchies where he has and would 
continue to have authority to control the work of direct and indirect subordinates comprised of 
managerial and professional personnel. 
In sum, we find that the record has consistently demonstrated that the Beneficiary's former and current 
positions more likely than not have and would be comprised of primarily managerial job duties and 
that the Beneficiary therefore has and would more likely than not be employed in a managerial 
capacity. Therefore, we withdraw the Director's determination on this issue. 
B. Qualifying Relationship 
Next, we will address the issue of the Petitioner's qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer. As a preliminary matter, we note that the Director incorrectly identified! II I as the Beneficiary's foreign employer. In response to a request for evidence (RFE) the 
Petitioner explained that althou h the Beneficia was hired to work for in March 2018, he 
was transferred to work for wholl owned subsidiary, in 
July 2018. As such, the relevant issue is whether the Petitioner and.__ ____ _____.have an affiliate 
relationship. 
To be deemed affiliates, the Petitioner must establish that it and I I are owned and 
controlled by the same group of individuals with each owning and controlling approximately the same 
proportion of each entity or that they are owned and controlled by a common individual or parent 
entity. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2) (for the definition of the term "affiliate"). The latter scheme applies 
2 
in this instance based on the Petitioner's claim that owns 100% of its stock 
and 99% o±i lstock. ,_________ ~ 
In the denial, the Director mentioned the 2018-2019 tax return tor '--------~ and its 
subsidiaries, noting that the tax returns "shows that 43% of the company is held by [sic] foreign entityl 
in Mexico." However, because the Petitioner claims to have an affiliate relationship with 1 
I I the ownership that is relevant and critical to that claim is that of those two entities - the 
Petitioner and I I- not that of.__ ______ ~ which is claimed to be the common 
parent entity. 
The Director also misinterpreted the submitted evidence, stating that the Petitioner's stock certificates 
and stock transfer ledger show that while,__ _____ ____,owns 10,000 shares of the Petitioner's 
stock, "over 12,000 common stocks are owned by various individuals and one entity from Mexico." 
That assessment is incorrect. First, there is no evidence that the Petitioner issued 12,000 shares of 
stock in addition to its issuance of the 10,000, which it duly documented through stock certificates and 
shareholder agreement. Further, although the Petitioner provided a stock transfer ledger and 
corresponding stock certificates which identify five individuals and one entity as the Petitioner's 
original shareholders, the record shows that the original ownership scheme changed following a series 
of sales transactions, which resulted in~------~becoming the sole owner of the Petitioner's 
stock. Because the Petitioner provided the original stock certificates, the subsequent stock purchase 
agreements, and a stock transfer ledger outlining each sales transaction, the record adequately 
establishes I I as the Petitioner's owner. 
Accordingly, the question that remains is whether the record similarly establishes I I 
as the parent of I I the Petitioner's foreign employer. To fully address this issue, we 
must first look to the ownership of.__ _________ ~ parent entity. In the RFE response 
exhibit list, the Petitioner itemized and described the contents of the documents it was submitting to 
address the issue of ownership of I Iand I I Such documents were to include 
corporate minutes nos. 3825, 10,881, and 12,468. We note that corporate minutes no. 3825 and its 
English language translation are part of the record. This document establishes I Iformation 
in I I 2003 and lists the six individuals and one entity who were the company's seven original 
shareholders. We were, however, unable to locate corporate minutes nos. 10,881 and 12,468 in the 
record, which, according to the Petitioner's description of these documents, are critical to establishing 
how.________ _. came to own 99% ofl land ultimately the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer. 
In a description of corporate minutes no. 10,881, the Petitioner stated that the document was created 
in December 2011 and was the vehicle for~-------~ acquisition of 240 shares of0 
I I stock pursuant to an approval by the latter entity's Board of Directors. In a description of 
corporate minutes no. 12,468, the Petitioner stated that the document was created in February 2014 
and was the vehicle for another Board of Directors' approval of a stock disposition, which purportedly 
resulted in.________ ____, acquisition of 499 out of a total 500 shares ofl I issued 
stock. We note that the Petitioner included a document titled "Incumbency Specimen" which lists 
as owner of 499 out of a total 500 shares I I issued stock. However, this ~------~ document lists no details as to when and how the stock was acquired from the original shareholders, 
nor does the record contain any other supporting documents, such as stock certificates or stock 
3 
purchase agreements, to corroborate ~-------~acquisition of 99% of I Istock. 
As such, we are unable to verify the Petitioner's claim regarding I I stock disposition and 
ownership of 499 shares of I I stock. Accordingly, even though the 
~P-et-i-ti-on_e_r_p_r_o_v-id_e_d~a similar "Incumbency Specimen" showing I I as owner of 99% of c=]
I jstock, such documentation is not sufficient without farther evidence showing when and 
how~------~ acquired ownership of I I stock. We farther note that the record 
does not currently contain I I original formation document or evidence showing when 
it was formed and howl Icame to own the majority of its stock. 
Regardless, because the Director's decision did not adequately analyze the evidence and facts 
concerning the issue of the qualifying relationship, we will remand the matter for entry of a new 
decision. The Director should request any additional evidence warranted, such as the corporate 
minutes nos. 10,881 and 12,468 and all relevant documentation pertaining to I I 
ownership, and allow the Petitioner to submit such evidence within a reasonable period of time. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4