sustained EB-1C Case: Consulting And Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 26, 2024 In Re: 32720811 
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 company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as a 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 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 it had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's former foreign employer. The 
Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen that the Director also denied. 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 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 corning 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(j)(3). 
The Petitioner is a multinational consulting services company describing itself as the "largest global 
professional services network." The Petitioner stated that it earns approximately $19.8 billion 
annually and employs about 28,000 employees worldwide. The Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad with an affiliated company in Canada as a manager overseeing 
professional subordinates and that she would act in a similar role in the United States. 
As discussed, the Director denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not establish it had a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer in Canada. The Director indicated 
that a submitted L-lA nonimmigrant blanket petition established that a qualifying relationship existed 
between the Petitioner and foreign employer when it was approved in 2019 but did not sufficiently 
verify that it still existed when the petition was filed in March 2023. The Director also denied the 
Petitioner's motion to reopen. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director applied the incorrect definition of affiliates. The 
Petitioner asserts that it and the foreign employer qualify as affiliates since it is a United States 
partnership and both companies, including the Beneficiary's foreign employer, market their 
accounting and consulting services under the same internationally recognized name. 
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. We agree with the Petitioner that the Director applied the incorrect definition of 
affiliates. The regulations reflect that a petitioner may demonstrate that it is affiliated with a 
beneficiary's foreign employer if both provide accounting services, along with managerial and/or 
consulting services, and if they market said services under the same internationally recognized name 
under a worldwide coordinating organization owned and controlled by the member firms. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(2)(C). The Petitioner has submitted sufficient supporting documentation to establish that it 
and the Beneficiary's foreign employer are more likely than not firms providing accounting and 
consulting services under the same internationally recognized name under a worldwide coordinating 
organization owned and controlled by member firms. Therefore, the Petitioner has sufficiently 
demonstrated that it and the foreign employer are affiliates and that they have a qualifying relationship. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2