sustained EB-1C Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-&C~.._ _ __, 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 18, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, ....._ ________________ _, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as an engagement manager (management consultant) 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)(l)(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition on four grounds. The Director determined 
that the Petitioner did not establish, as required, (1) that a qualifying relationship exists between the 
Petitioner and the foreign entity, (2) that the Petitioner had been doing business for at least one year 
at the time the petition was filed, (3) that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial 
capacity, as claimed, for at least one year during the three years preceding his entry into the United 
States as a nonirnmigrant, and (4) that the Beneficiary has worked and will continue to work in a 
managerial capacity, as claimed, in the United States. 
On appeal the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the evidence already in the record overcomes 
all four grounds for denial and establishes the Beneficiary 's eligibility for classification as a 
multinational manager. 
Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
The fust issue is whether the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer. To establish a "qualifying relationship " the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (a U.S. entity with a foreign 
office) or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See section 203(6 )(1 )(C) of the Act; 
see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) (providing definitions of the terms "affiliate" and "subsidiary"). Based 
on the entire record we find that the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
The second issue is whether the Petitioner was doing business for at least one year before filing the 
instant petition in October 2017, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(d). "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 office. 8 C.F.R. 
Matter of M-&C~~-~ 
§ 204.5(j)(2). Based on the entire record we find that the Petitioner has established, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that it meets the "doing business" requirement of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(3)(1 )( d). 
The third issue is whether the Beneficiary was employed outside the United States in a managerial 
capacity, as defined in section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, for at least one year during the three years 
preceding his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant in October 2015, as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B). The regulations provide that the Petitioner submit a 
statement from an authorized official demonstrating that the Beneficiary meets these requirements, 
and allows the Director to request additional evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i) and (ii). Based 
on the entire record - which includes descriptions of the Beneficiary's job duties with the foreign 
employer submitted with the Petitioner's initial evidence and in response to a request for additional 
evidence, and other documentation such as an organizational chart and the job descriptions of 
subordinate employees - we find that the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity by the foreign entity for at least 
one year during the three years preceding his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant. 
The fourth issue is whether the Beneficiary has been and will continue to be employed in a managerial 
capacity in the United States, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). The regulation 
provides that the Petitioner must submit a statement which indicates that the Beneficiary is employed 
in such a capacity in the United States and "clearly describe[s] the duties to be performed." Id. Based 
on the entire record - which includes the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's job duties in the 
United States and other pertinent documentation such as an organizational chart and the job 
descriptions of subordinate employees - we find that the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance 
of the evidence, that the Beneficiary is and will continue to be employed in a managerial capacity by 
the Petitioner in the United States. 
The appeal will be sustained because the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that a qualifying relationship exists between the Petitioner and the foreign entity, that the 
Petitioner had been doing business for at least one year at the time the petition was filed, that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity for at least one year during the three years 
preceding his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant, and that the Beneficiary has worked and 
will continue to work in a managerial capacity in the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofM-&CLJ, ID# 5963271 (AAO Oct. 18, 2019) 
2