sustained EB-1C Case: Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 12, 2024 In Re: 30992995 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a consulting and professional services firm, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as a specialist master 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. 
§ l l 53(b )(1 )(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: (1) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's last foreign 
employer; (2) it has been doing business in the United States for at least one year; and (3) the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer continues to do business in India. The matter is now before us on 
appeal pursuant to 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will sustain the appeal. 
A petitioner seeking to classify a beneficiary as a multinational executive or manager under section 
203(b)(1 )(C) of the Act must establish, in part, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United 
States for the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of their 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(j)(3). 
In addition, the petitioner must establish that, at the time of filing, it maintains a qualifying relationship 
with the legal entity that employed the beneficiary abroad. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(I); see also Matter 
of F-M- Co., Adopted Decision 2020-01 (AAO May 5, 2020). To establish that relationship, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that the legal entity that employed the beneficiary abroad continues to do 
business as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to apply the preponderance of the evidence 
standard in this matter. Further, while it maintains that the previously submitted evidence was 
sufficient to demonstrate its ongoing qualifying relationship with Beneficiary's former foreign 
employer and both entities' ongoing business activities, it submits supplemental evidence in support 
of the appeal. 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity that employed the 
Beneficiary abroad prior to his transfer to the United States in 2021. It has also met its burden to 
demonstrate that the foreign entity continues to do business in India, that it was doing business in the 
United States for at least one year when it filed this petition in March 2023, and that it continues to do 
business. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer are qualifying 
affiliates based on their membership in one of the world's largest international management consulting 
organizations. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(j) (defining "affiliate"). The record also establishes that the 
foreign entity remains an active and operating firm within the organization's global network. Finally, 
the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence of its business activities. Specifically, it demonstrated that 
it achieved revenue of between $12 and $15 billion in the years 2021, 2022 and 2023. Accordingly, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2