sustained EB-1C Case: Industrial Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6946892 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 3, 2020 
Form I-140C, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer and seller of industrial mats and other ergonomic products, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as an "International Sales Manager" in the United States 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. § l 153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition on multiple grounds, concluding that 
the record did not establish, as required, that (1) the Petitioner existed as an importing employer and 
that there was a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer; 
(2) the Beneficiary had been employed in a managerial or executive capacity in his former capacity 
abroad; and (3) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it still exists as a legal entity and an importing employer, 
contending that it converted from a corporation to a limited liability company in the State of 
Tennessee. The Petitioner contends that it still exists as the same legal entity in every material respect 
and that this error in the petition did not impact its standing as an importing employer. Further, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualified abroad, and would act in the United States, as a 
manager of an essential function. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the record is sufficient to establish that the Petitioner exists as 
an importing employer and that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's former foreign 
employer. The Petitioner filed the petition asl l Inc. The Director later issued a request for 
evidence (RFE) in August 2018 requesting additional evidence to establish a qualifying relationship 
between it and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted 
documentation confirminl that the Petitioner had changed from a corporation, I I Inc., to a 
limited liability company, ILLC; and changed its legal entity name as reflected. 
The issue at hand is whether the Petitioner still exists as a legal entity and importing employer for 
purposes of the applicable regulations and whether there is a qualifying relationship. We note that 
Congress created this immigrant classification to facilitate the transfer of managerial and executive 
employees within the same multinational organization. 1 It is commonplace for large organizations to 
undergo reorganization and as a result, associated entities may be changed, merged, consolidated, or 
dissolved. If those changes occur after a beneficiary has been transferred to the United States in L-lA 
classification and prior to filing an immigrant petition for a multinational manager or executive, as in 
the current case, it is the petitioner's burden to fully disclose and document those corporate changes 
in support of its claim of a continuing qualifying relationship with the employer abroad. 2 Here, the 
evidence reflects that the Petitioner still exists as a legal entity only with a different name; specifically 
as a limited liability company as opposed to a corporation, consistent with Tennessee corporate law. 
Further, the submitted evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner is still the parent company of the 
Beneficiary's former foreign employer, despite this modification. Therefore, the totality of the 
evidence establishes that the Petitioner still exists as a legal entity and an importing employer; and in 
turn, that there is a qualifying relationship between it and the Beneficiary's former foreign employer. 
In addition, the submitted evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary more likely than not acted in a 
managerial capacity abroad prior to his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant in 2017. The 
Petitioner has submitted a detailed description of the Beneficiary's foreign duties working as European 
sales director indicating that he was primarily engaged in qualifying managerial tasks overseeing an 
essential function of the company; namely the company's European sales department. Further, the 
Petitioner provided documentation reflecting that the Beneficiary more likely than not delegated a 
majority of non-qualifying operational tasks to subordinate managers and other administrative 
employees supporting its European sales department, including an operations manager, two regional 
sales managers, a sales office manager, and a sales administrator. The Petitioner also submitted 
supporting documentation reflecting that the Beneficiary had the authority to hire, fire, and take other 
personnel actions with respect to these subordinates. For instance, the Petitioner provided evidence 
indicating that the Beneficiary conducted performance reviews of his subordinates and delegated work 
to them, that he had budgetary authority over his function, and that he made hiring and personnel 
decisions with respect to his function. As such, the evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary 
primarily performed the duties of a function manager abroad. 
Lastly, the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary would act as a function manager in the United 
States as international sales director overseeing the company's global sales operations. In fact, the 
Beneficiary's role the United States appears to be very similar to his role abroad, albeit expanded, and 
the Petitioner has submitted a detailed and credible duty description for this position. The Petitioner 
also submitted documentation indicating that the Beneficiary will oversee several managers and 
professionals within his function and that he will exercise full discretionary authority over it. In sum, 
the submitted evidence credibly demonstrates that the Beneficiary would more likely than not devote 
1 In promulgating the regulations on 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service 
commented that "this regulation reflects the statute and follows criteria long in place for the adjudication of petitions for 
[L-1] nonimmigrant intra-company transferees .... " 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (July 5, 1991 ). Therefore, Congress and 
the agency recognized the clear parallels between the immigrant and nonimmigrant classifications. An L-1 A 
nonimmigrant visa was approved on behalf of the Beneficiary for the period April 12, 2017, through March 31, 2020. 
2 A petitioner cannot rely on the prior L-1 approval as evidence of a qualitying relationship for purposes of a subsequent 
immigrant visa petition. The regulations recognize that the Beneficiary may already be working for the Petitioner or a 
related U.S. entity but still require a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5G)(3)(i)(B). 
2 
a majority of his time to qualifying managerial tasks in the United States. Therefore, the Petitioner 
sufficiently established that the Beneficiary will act as a function manager in the United States. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3