sustained EB-1C Case: Flight Support Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-US INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 22.2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140.IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKFR 
The Petitioner. a t1ight support services business. seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
operations manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives 
or managers. 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 pennanently transfer a qualified fi.1rcign 
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. as required. that the Petitioner has been doing business for at least one year prior to tiling the 
petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that it provided regular. systematic. 
and continuous services to its foreign aniliates for more than one year prior to filing the petition. 
Upon de novo review. we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 lor 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 at1iliate. Section 203(b)( I )(C) of the Act. 
The Fom1 1-140. Immigrant Petition lor Alien Worker. must include a statement from an authorized 
ofticial 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 tiling of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States tor the same 
employer or a subsidiary or atliliate of the foreign employer. and that the prospective U.S. employer has 
been doing business tor at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(i)(3). 
""Doing business .. means the regular. systematic. and continuous provision of goods and/or services by a 
firm, corporation. or other entity and does not include the mere presence of an agent or oftice. 8 C.F.R. 
~ 204 .5(i)(2 ). 
.
A,faller of.!- US Inc. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the record did not establish that the Petitioner has been doing business tc1r 
at least one year prior to filing the petition. The Petitioner tiled the petition on December 22. 2016. and 
there lore, it must establish it \Vas doing business tor the year prior to December 22, 2016. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner was incorporated in Delaware on April 14. 2014, and registered 
as a foreign profit corporation in Florida on April 28. 2014. In a statement from an authorized officiaL 
the Petitioner asserts that it provides support services to its foreign affiliate, a global flight planning and 
support company based in the United Arab Emirates. The Petitioner asserts that it does not engage in 
business directly with its own customers, but with the customers of its aili.liated companies instead. It 
asserts that all ofthe services it provides arc ''indirectly for the benefit of one main client: 
To demonstrate its Cnited States operations, the Petitioner submitted its organizational documents: its 
20 I 5 and 2016 tederal tax returns; its federal quarterly tax returns t(H all t(mr quarters of 20 16; its 2015 
payroll register; bank statements from October 2015 to March 2017: its lease agreement: invoices and 
agreements with suppliers and service providers; evidence of wire transfers for services rendered by the 
Petitioner to its t()reign affiliates: copies of checks tor services provided; and invoices and 
correspondence relating to its U.S. operations. 
ln his decision, the Director stated that the bank statements, tax records, and \.Vire transfers submitted 
show income received. but that the evidence is not specific to the actual services performed by the 
Petitioner. Because the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the business it 
conducted, the Director determined that it had not been doing business for at least one year prior to 
filing the petition. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Petitioner 
and The MOU clarities that the Petitioner handles and arranges service requests tor 
customers in the United States, Canada, and Latin America : locates prospective clients in those 
regions; maintains relationships with those customers~ attends and speaks at regional conferences: and 
facilitates completion of service contracts and !light arrangements. The MOU also clarities that all 
invoice payments for services rendered by the Petitioner are made to m 1 
The definition of''doing business'' at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5U)(2) contains no requirement that a petitioner 
tor a multinational manager or executive must provide goods or services to an unaffiliated third 
party. The Petitioner in this matter has defined the speci tic services it provides to its foreign 
affiliates and it has submitted documentation to corroborate that it provided regular. systematic. and 
continuous flight planning and support services to these related companies for the year prior to tiling 
the petition. lts 2015 federal tax return sho\.VS gross receipts of$ 1,894. 769, 2 and salary payments of 
1 
The MOU indicates that Petitioner and operate under the name for invoicing and other 
company purposes. 
2 The IRS Form 5472. Information Return of a 25% Foreign Owned U.S. Corporation or a Foreign Corporation Engaged 
2 
Maller of.!- US Inc. 
$1,345.335. Its 2016 federal tax return and payroll records show gross receipts of$2J09,10L 3 and 
salary payments of $1,254.134. Its bank statements and wire transfer receipts confirm regular 
deposits as payment for services rendered to its foreign affiliates 4 and salary payments to its 
professional employer organization (PEO). 5 The correspondence, invoices, and articles submitted by 
the Petitioner support its description of the services it provides as referenced in its initial support 
letter and the MOU. 6 More specifically, the record contains price quotes. t1ight plans, fuel releases, 
customs declarations. t1ight validations, landing approvals, and other correspondence and 
documentation related to the Petitioner's U.S. operations from early 2015 onward. The Petitioner 
has provided relevant, probative, and credible evidence establishing its eligibility for the benefit 
requested. 
For the above stated reasons, we tind that the Petitioner has established that it was doing business for at 
least one year prior to the petition's filing date. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that it was doing business for at least one year prior to filing the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter o(.!-US Inc., ID# 946779 (AAO Feb. 22. 2018) 
in a U.S. Trade or Business. attached to its 2015 federal tax return confirms that the Petitioner received these funds as 
consideration for services it provided to its foreign affiliate. 
3 The IRS Form 54 72 attached to its 2016 federal tax return confirms that the Petitioner received these funds as 
consideration for services it provided to its foreign affiliate. 
'The bank records are supported by documentation of wire transfers into the Petitioner's bank account. 
'The Petitioner utilizes the services of a PEO to handle its human resources functions, including payroll. 
"The Director appears to have overlooked the dates on some of the email correspondence submitted. While some of the 
emails submitted do not have dates, the receipts and invoices suppm1ing the email clmespondence are dated.