sustained EB-1C Case: It/Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12008804 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : MAY 6, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for a Multinational Executive or Manager 
The Petitioner, an IT/distribution company , seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as director, 
global cloud business development, 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 employment-based "EB-1" immigrant 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 on the grounds that the Petitioner did 
not establish that there is a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's employer 
abroad or that "the [P]etitioner and the foreign entity were doing business for at least one year before the 
[petition was filed] and ... continue to do business." 
On appeal the Petitioner submits additional documentation and asserts that the evidence of record 
establishes its qualifying relationship with the foreign entity and that the Petitioner and the foreign 
entity were both doing business for at least one year before the petition was filed and continue to do 
business. 
Upon de nova review we will sustain the appeal. 
To meet the requirement of a qualifying relationship the Petitioner must establish that "[t]he 
prospective employer in the United States is the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the firm 
or corporation or other legal entity by which the alien was employed overseas." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C) . In his decision, dated March 18, 2020, the Director reviewed evidence indicating 
that the Beneficiary was employed bvl lfrom June 2013 to 
December 2015, that this business unit d I was acquired by the 
Petitioner in December 2015, and that the Beneficiary was then employed by the Petitioner's UK 
subsidiary..__ ________ ..... In the Director's view, however, the documentation in the record 
did not establish that the Beneficiary's previous employer,! l was integrated 
into his new employerJ I While acknowledging that an approval notice issued 
by USCIS recofaized the existence of a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner andl I I as of February 4, 2016 , the Director stated that the evidence did not demonstrate that 
a qualifying relationship between the two entities still existed at the time the instant petition was filed 
in June 2019 and continued up to the present. 
On appeal the Petitioner submits additional corporate documentation which, in combination with 
previousl,¥ submitted evidence, shows thatl l the business unit ofl I 
]for which the Beneficiary worked, was purchased by the Petitioner and integrated into its 
~su_b_s_i_d-ia-ry~, I I in December 2015, and that the Beneficiary's employment was 
simultaneously transferred to that company. The documentation confirms that the Beneficiary's 
employment was uninterrupted by this transaction and that his job title and working conditions 
remained the same until his transfer to the United States in February 2016 to work for the Petitioner 
as an intracompany transferee with L-lA classification. Thus, the Petitioner has established the 
existence of a qualifying relationship between itself and the Beneficiary's foreign employer) I I ' I We also determine, based on the documentation submitted by the Petitioner and 
publicly available information, that the Petitioner maintained a qualifying relationship witH I 
~---~-~ at the time the instant petition was filed in June 2019 and continues to do so up to 
the present. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's findings to the contrary. 
As for the "conducting business" requirements in this case, the Petitioner must establish that it was 
"doing business" for at least one year at the time the petition was filed in 2019, and that it continues 
to do so up to the present. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(D). "Doing business" is defined in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(2) as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services and does 
not include the mere presence of an agent or office." The Petitioner must also establish that the foreign 
entity employed the Beneficiary for at least one year during the three year period before his transfer 
to the United States, see 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(B), and that it has continued to conduct business as a 
"multinational" from the time the instant petition was filed up to the present. "Multinational," as 
defined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2), "means that the qualifying entity, or its affiliate, or subsidiary, 
conducts business in two or more countries, one of which is the United States." 
In his decision the Director reviewed assorted documentation spanning the years 2015-2020 and 
concluded that it was insufficient to establish that the Petitioner was <loin~ business for at least one 
year before the filing of the instant petition and continues to do so, or that I 
was conducting business for at least one year before the filing of the petition and continues to do so. 
On appeal the Petitioner submits additional corporate documentation which, along with publicly 
available information, shows that both the Petitioner and the foreign entity have been conducting 
business at all times pertinent to this petition. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's findings 
to the contrary. 
For the reasons discussed above we conclude that the Petitioner has overcome the Director's grounds 
for denial and established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is folly qualified for the 
immigration benefit sought in this proceeding. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2