sustained EB-1C Case: Granite And Marble Products

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-1- CORP. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 22, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an importer and distributor of granite and marble products, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its president/CEO under the first preference immigrant classification of a 
multinational executive or manager. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b )( 1 )(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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: ( 1) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in an executive 
or managerial capacity; and (2) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence addressing the issues discussed in 
the Director's decision. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa 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. 
A United States employer may file Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a 
beneficiary under section 203(b )( 1 )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. The petition 
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 atliliate 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). 
Matter of P-1- Corp. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director found that the evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44) ofthe Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide a sufficient description of the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks and did not support its claim that the company's nine other 
employees work on a full-time basis. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a more detailed position description for the Beneficiary that clearly 
explains the nature of his day-to-day tasks within the business and clarifies that the salaries paid to 
some employees appeared to be lower because they were hired mid-year or mid-quarter. We find 
that this claim is well supported by detailed payroll evidence in the record. 
Upon review, the record, including the new evidence submitted on appeal, is sufficient to establish 
by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity 
in which he primarily manages the petitioning company as a whole, supervises and controls the work 
of subordinate supervisory employees, has the authority to hire and fire employees, and exercises 
discretion over the day-to-day operations of the company. 
The record confirms that the Petitioner's employees are full-time workers and, based on the nature 
and scope of the company, the staffing levels appear sufficient to relieve the Beneficiary from 
significant involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company. Accordingly, the Director's 
finding with respect to this issue is withdrawn. 
III. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The Director also found that the Petitioner had not established a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer in Brazil. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, a petitioner must show 
that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. a 
U.S. entity with a foreign office) or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See 
generally section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C). The pertinent regulations at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) define the relevant terms. Generally, the regulation defines a "subsidiary" as 
an entity with a parent that controls the entity and, directly or indirectly, owns all or part of the 
entity. 
1 The Director also noted that the Petitioner's sales manager owns his own company and questioned why that employee 
"would abandon the management of this company to work as a sales manager" for the petitioning company. The 
Petitioner submits an affidavit from its sales manager, who explains that he remains the president of his own company, 
but has no need to be involved in its day-to-day operations. We find that the sales manager's affidavit is detailed and 
credible, and we have no reason to doubt his full-time employment with the petitioning company. 
2 
Matter of P-1- Corp. 
The Petitioner has consistently claimed that it is a subsidiary of the Beneficiary's foreign employer 
based on that entity's 50 percent ownership in the petitioning company and has provided its articles 
of incorporation, stock certificates, and stock transfer ledger supporting that claim. The remaining 
50 percent of the company's issued stock is owned by an individual residing in the United States. 
The Director denied the petition because: (1) the Petitioner's 2014 federal tax return did not identify 
any foreign ownership and the Petitioner did not provide evidence that it filed an amended tax return 
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and (2) the 50-50 ownership structure described was 
insufficient to establish that the foreign entity actually controls the Petitioner, absent evidence that 
the shareholders formed a 50-50 joint venture wherein each owner exercises ''negative control." 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from its accounting firm and a copy of its 2014 IRS Form 
1120X, Amended U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, which indicates the Petitioner's ownership 
by the foreign entity, and bears a receipt stamp indicating that it was filed with the IRS. In light of 
the other credible evidence of ownership by the foreign entity, we find this amended tax return 
sufficient to overcome the Director's concerns. 
Further, we have reviewed the Petitioner's articles of incorporation and find the foreign entity's 50 
percent ownership interest in the Petitioner is sufficient to grant it the requisite control over the 
company. The Petitioner's shareholders have equal voting rights. While the regulatory definition of 
"subsidiary" refers to 50-50 ownership in a joint venture context, the same equal control and veto 
power may exist outside of a joint venture arrangement. The Petitioner has established that it is a 
subsidiary of the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has overcome both stated grounds for denial, the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of P-I- Corp., ID# 432266 (AAO June 22, 2017) 
3