sustained EB-1C Case: Hospitality Management

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 1 3 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigra tion Servict 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER : 
Enclosed is the non-precede nt decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
Thank you, 
rJ-
V\/Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center denied the immigrant visa petition. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner filed the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form 
I-140) to classify the beneficiary 
as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b )(1)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The 
petitioner is a limited liability company that operates as a payroll manager for a group of hotels, 
which, like the petitioner , are majority owned by the same U.S. holding company-
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. 
In a decision dated August 27, 2014, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner 
failed to establish: (1) that it has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's last foreign 
employer; and (2) that it had the ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage as of the date the 
petition was filed. 
On appeal, the petitioner offers an appellate brief along with additional supporting documents , which 
address the director 's findings. On March 18, 2015, we issued a request for additional evidence 
relating to the petitioner's ability to pay. The petitioner's response to our RFE has been incorporated 
into the record of proceeding. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). Upon reviewing the entire record of proceeding as supplemented by the petitioner's 
submission on appeal and in response to our RFE, we conclude that the record now contains 
sufficient evidence to overcome the grounds for denial as stated in the director's decision. 
Specifically, the totality of the evidence establishes that the petitioner has a qualifying affiliate 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. Although the evidence shows that the 
beneficiary's foreign employer is owned by a total of three trusts, while the petitioner is owned by a 
combination of thirteen individuals and one trust, a review of the ownership breakdown indicates 
that the same individuals who have ownership interests in the petitioning entity also have 
corresponding ownership interests in the foreign entity through the holdings conveyed to them 
through their respective trusts. Accordingly, we find that the petitioner meets subsection (B) of the 
regulatory definition of the term affiliate at 8 C.P.R. § 204.50)(2) , which states that the petitioner is 
an affiliate if it is one of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, 
where each individual owns and controls approximately the same share or proportion of the U.S. and 
foreign entities. 
Further, we find that the petitioner has established that it has had the continuing ability to pay the 
proffered wage from the priority date onward based on IRS Form W-2 statements showing gross pay 
equal to or above the offered wage for 2012 and 2013, and additional financial documentation 
submitted prior to the denial of the petition , on appeal, and in response to our RFE. See 8 C.P.R. § 
204.5(g)(2); see also Matter of Sonegawa, 12 I &N Dec. 612 (Reg1 Comm'r 1967). Accordingly, the 
appeal will be sustained. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner in the instant case has 
sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.