sustained EB-1C Case: Oil And Gas

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23608308 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 29 , 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner , which sells oil and gas, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as an operations 
manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational managers or executives. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary ' s foreign employer. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An immigrant visa is 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 orto its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 
The Form I-140 , Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker , 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 , thatthe beneficiary is coming to work in the United States forthe same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate 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) . 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it has the 
required qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
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 )(1 )(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) 
defines the relevant terms. One definition of "affiliate" is "one of two subsidiaries both of which are 
owned and controlled by the same parent or individual." 
The Beneficiary worked for ________ before entering the United States as an L-1 A 
nonimmigrant under a blanket L petition. 1 A partial copy of the approval notice for the blanket L 
petition, filed by the Petitioner in 2019, indicates that I owns 100% of 
I _ while I I owns I 00% of the petitioning U.S. entity. 
Because the submitted excerpts of the blanket L petition approval notice do not show the relationship 
between I I and f the Director issued a request for evidence 
and then a notice of intent to deny, instructing the Petitioner to submit evidence to establish a 
qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and In response, the Petitioner 
described the following ownership chain: 
The petitioning U.S. entity 
To corroborate the claimed structure, the Petitioner submitted documentation such as business register 
printouts, share certificates, unanimous consent agreements, and registers of shareholders. 
The Director denied the etition, acknowledging that the Petitioner "is wholly owned by I 
and but concluding in g "theere is no evidence showing that I I 
or owns at least 50% of the common shares of' the Petitioner. 
We agree with the Petitioner that the Director's conclusion does not take into account documentation 
submitted in response to the notice of intent to deny. A "Business Register extract" issued by the 
I I Chamber of Commerce indicates thatl is isl I I l'[s]ole shareholder." A director's resolution, purchase agreement, securities register, and share 
certificate all show that I purchased 100% of I shares in June 2015. These 
documents, along with other materials in the record, complete the chain of ownership. The record 
does not contain, and the Director did not cite, any evidence that contradicts or conflicts with this 
information. 
1 A petitioner may file a blanket petition to seek continuing approval of itself and some or all of its parent, branches, 
subsidiaries, andaffilia tes as qualifying organizations if the petitioner andeachofthose entities are engaged in commercial 
trade or services, and if certain otherrequirements are met. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(4)(i). 
2 
A petitioner must establish that it meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a 
preponderance of the evidence. MatterofChawathe, 25 I& NDec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other 
words, a petitioner must show that what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. In this 
case, we conclude that the Petitioner's evidence is credible, consistent, and sufficient to meet this 
standard. 
The Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it has a qualifying relationship 
withl as affiliates through their shared ownership by I 
The Petitioner has therefore overcome the only stated ground for denial of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3