sustained EB-1C Case: Tourism

identfl'ng data deleted to 
prevent ciearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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. 3 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
dministrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 149 53890 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner was incorporated on the Territory of Guam and is 
 enterprise. The petitioner 
indicates that it is an affiliate of the beneficiary's foreign employer 
 located in Japan. It seeks 
to employ the beneficiary as manager of its tour counter division. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to 
classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that it has a qualifying relationship 
with a foreign entity. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's conclusions and submits additional evidence regarding the common 
ownership of the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is described 
in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of the 
alien's application for classification and admission into the United States 
under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or 
corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who 
seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the 
same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is 
managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and managers who 
have previously worked for the firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that 
entity, and are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
statement which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. 
The sole issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner established that it has a qualifying relationship with 
the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(2) states in pertinent part: 
WAC 03 149 53890 
Page 3 
AfJiliate means: 
(A) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or 
individual; 
(B) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, each 
individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity; 
Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, directly or 
indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 
half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 
joint venture and has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
In support of the initial petition, the petitioner submitted the following documents regarding the ownership of 
the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer: 
ed list of affiliates commonly owned by Japan 
t list are the beneficiary's foreign employer, the 
, the petitioner's direct owner. 
4. Exhibit 11. an audited financial statement for the petitioner identifvinn it as a whollv owned 
On June 16, 2004, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign 
employer are not similarly owned. The director stated that while owns 76.2% of 
the foreign entitv. it does not own anv Dart of the U.S. ~etitioner. 98% of which is evenlv sulit between 
On appeal, counsel challenges the director's conclusion and submits a brief explaining the breakdown of the 
ownership of the U.S. and foreign entities in question. Counsel refers to the evidence previously submitted in 
support of the petition and asserts that the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer ultimately have 
~ - 
one common owner--. A thorough review of the record indicates that 
this claim is well documented. The ownership breakdown as recited by the director was incorrect as of the 
WAC 03 149 53890 
Page 4 
date the petition wa 
 tioner submitted sufficient documentation indicating that the sale of the 
petitioner's stock to 
 which took place in 1999, effectively put the U.S. petitioner and the 
beneficiary's a common ownership umbrella making them affiliates. The director 
failed to consider this significant change. 
On review, based on the evidence of record and the additional evidence submitted on appeal, the AAO finds 
that the petitioner has overcome the sole ground of the director's denial. There are no other grounds for 
denying this petition. 
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. 9 1361. The petitioner in the instant case has sustained that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.