sustained EB-1C Case: Aircraft Maintenance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 21, 2024 In Re: 31930889 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, an aircraft maintenance and repair services company, 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 a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's former foreign 
employer. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 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 will sustain the appeal. 
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 Workers, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
their entry as a nonirnmigrant, the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and the prospective U.S. employer has 
been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3). 
The Petitioner stated it "is the world's largest independent provider of hourly cost maintenance 
programs for aircraft engines and airframes," providing services around the world to clients requiring 
"comprehensive, flexible, and affordable tools for managing the often unpredictable costs of operating 
and maintaining nearly all types of turbine-powered aircraft." The Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad as a senior vice president - business development and strategy from 
January 2019 to February 2021, then promoted to executive vice president - global business 
development in February 2021, working in this role until his entry into the United States as an L-1 A 
intracompany transferee in June 2021 to be employed as chief revenue officer. 
In concluding the Petitioner did not establish a proper qualifying relationship, the Director reasoned 
that the submitted evidence did not demonstrate the Beneficiary was employed directly by a foreign 
employer but instead was employed by the Petitioner while working abroad. The Director also 
indicated the submitted evidence reflected that the Beneficiary was paid by the Petitioner while 
employed abroad. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that applicable law and policy allows for a beneficiary to enter the 
United States "in order to continue to render services to the same employer," and therefore, a 
beneficiary may gain qualifying foreign employment while being employed abroad by the Petitioner, 
and not a separate foreign entity. 
The Petitioner's assertions are persuasive. The plain language of the statute makes an immigrant visa 
available to a noncitizen who "has been employed for at least one year by a firm or corporation or 
other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof'' in the three years preceding their entry into the 
United States as a nonimmigrant, and who "seeks to enter the United States in order to continue render 
services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or 
executive." Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act ( emphasis added). The implementing regulations at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3) closely mirror the statutory language. Likewise, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Service's Policy Manual states that "to establish a qualifying relationship under the 
statute and the regulations, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the 
proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (for example, a US. entity with a foreign office)." See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (emphasis added). 
The principal focus of the statute and regulations is on the continuity of a beneficiary's employment 
within the same multinational organization. This interpretation is consistent with Congress' purpose 
in creating this classification as a means of permanently transferring key managers and executives 
within a multinational organization. 1 We discern no statutory or regulatory prohibition on the transfer 
of an overseas-based employee who is directly employed by and reports to a U.S. petitioner within a 
qualifying multinational organization, provided that all other eligibility requirements are met. 
Here, the Beneficiary was continuously employed within the Petitioner's multinational organization 
for at least one year in the three years preceding his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant. 
Specifically, the record reflects that the Petitioner directly employed the Beneficiary outside the 
United States from January 2019 until his entry to the United States in June 2021 to be employed as 
chief revenue officer. The Petitioner seeks to have him continue rendering his services in the United 
States ("the same employer"), and that organization will continue to do business in the United States 
1 Congress noted "the need of multinational business to transfer key personnel around the world as nonimmigrants is 
paralleled in this category to allow a basis upon which these individuals may immigrate." See H.R. REP. NO. 101-723 
( 1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6739, 1990 WL 200418. 
2 
and at least one other country. Therefore, the Petitioner sufficiently established that it had a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer and demonstrated his eligibility for the benefit 
sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3