sustained EB-1C Case: Wholesale Bakery

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-A-CG-, LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 1 L 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, which owns and operates a wholesale bakery, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its president and chief executive officer 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 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 evidence of record 
did not establish that: ( 1) a "corporate relationship" exists between the petitioning entity and the entity 
that directly operates the bakery; and (2) the petitioning entity is still doing business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred by 
disregarding information and evidence that corroborates the Petitioner" s assertions. 
Upon de novo review, we tind that the Petitioner has overcome the grounds for denial. We will 
sustain the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa 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 or to its subsidiary or aftiliate. 
A United States employer may file Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a 
beneficiary under section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. This 
classification does not require a labor certification. 
The petition must include a statement from an authorized ofticial 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 tiling of the petition. that the 
beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of 
.
Matter (~fC-A-CG-. LLC 
the foreign employer, and that the prospective U.S. employer has been doing business for at least one 
year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(3). 
II. BUSINESS ACTIVITY 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner is no longer doing business and has not 
established "a corporate relationship'' with (OGPD), which 
operates a wholesale bakery under the fictitious 
name The Director noted that the 
most recent invoices and tax documents pertain to OGPD, not to the entity that filed the petition. and 
that the Petitioner does not have any employees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it has shown that it does business and employs workers through 
OGPD. In December 2014, the petitioner purchased the entire membership interest in OGPD. Tax 
and payroll documentation from the time of filing in December 2015 shows the Beneficiary on 
OGPD's payroll, rather than that of the petitioning entity. 
The record establishes the Petitioner's sole ownership of OGPD, and that the Petitioner and OGPD 
jointly own the fictitious business name · The Petitioner states that it "conducts its 
business operations through its wholly owned subsidiary,'' which, in turn, is a ''disregarded entity'' 
under 26 C.F.R. § 301.7701-3. The Petitioner contends that it and OGPD "are one economic unit." 
On its 2015 and 2016 income tax returns, the Petitioner referred to itself as a "bakery" and reported 
paying $60,000 per year in ot1icer compensation. OGPD reported paying the Beneficiary that 
amount on IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, for the same years, because a disregarded 
entity is responsible for certain employment-based taxes. The tax documents are consistent with the 
Petitioner's assertion that OGPD is a disregarded entity that pays its taxes through its sole member. 
the petitioning entity.' 
The Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it owns. controls, and does 
business through OGPD. 
III. OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT 
The Director also found perceived discrepancies in the Beneficiary's job description, and concluded 
that the Beneficiary's other business holdings reduce the amount of time the Beneficiary would be 
able to devote to the company that tiled the petition. 
The Petitioner has indicated that the Beneficiary continues to hold his foreign position concurrently 
with his U.S. position. The Petitioner submitted descriptions for the two positions. which the 
Director found to be inconsistent. 
1 More information is available at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/single-member­
limited-liability-companies, a printout of which has been added to the record. 
2 
Matter ofC-A-CG-. LLC 
The job descriptions included approximate percentages of time required for each duty. The Director 
found that the percentages add up to 200%, because the percentages for each of the two sets of duties 
(one foreign, one U.S.) add up to 100%. The Director also found that. while the Beneficiary's U.S. 
duties include one responsibility relating to the foreign company, that responsibility does not appear on 
the list of duties that the Beneficiary performs directly for the foreign company. 
There is, however. no inherent discrepancy between the job descriptions. As the Petitioner specified in 
a letter submitted with the petition, the Beneficiary has been the foreign parent company's director of 
business development and marketing since 2002, and remains in that position. The responsibilities of 
such a position are different from those of a president and chief executive officer, the titles he holds 
with respect to the petitioning U.S. entity. The lack of overlap between the descriptions is not a basis 
for denial. The percentage figures relate to the time devoted to each task within the context of one 
position or the other, rather than his total working time. The Petitioner has not claimed that the 
Beneficiary devotes 200% of his time to his various duties. 
In a request for evidence, the Director noted that Florida business records identified the Beneficiary 
as an official of two additional limited liability companies beyond the ones named above. The 
Director asked the Petitioner to explain how much time the Beneficiary spends on his duties with 
each of the companies. The Director stated, without elaboration: ·'Evidence submitted suggests the 
beneficiary has the general manager run the petitioner without to[ o] much involvement:· 
In response, the Beneficiary stated that the companies do not conduct business. One company 
passively owns property, while the other "is completely inactive." The Beneficiary asserted that he 
does "not dedicate any time or effort to'· the two companies. 
In the denial notice, the Director noted that the Beneficiary had called one company "completely 
inactive," and stated: ''The Florida Division of Corporation[s] shows this entity as being active ... 
The Director noted that the Beneficiary was later "involved in the start of a fourth company" 
(actually registered as a non-profit foundation rather than as a business entity). The Director 
concluded that the Beneficiary has little time to devote to the petitioning entity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the other companies have not done business. 
A claim that a business entity does not engage in business is not readily amenable to documentation. 
Instead, we must look to the lack of evidence that the companies do engage in business. The 
Director went beyond the record to find evidence that the other companies exist as legal entities, but 
did not cite any evidence such as business permits, promotional materials, or the results of any on­
site investigation to establish that the companies conduct business and that. consequently, the 
Beneficiary must devote time to those entities? 
2 In their organizing documents filed with the State of Florida. both of the business entities named the same "'principal 
address,·· belonging to a residential condominium rather than a commercial property. We acknowledge that the 
companies are in "active·· status. but this means only that the companies have complied with filing requirements. It does 
3 
Matter ofC-A-CG-. LLC 
The denial of the petitiOn rested on general findings that the Petitioner provided inconsistent 
information and that the Beneficiary lacks the time to effectively lead the petitioning entity. The 
Petitioner has overcome these findings. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has overcome the stated grounds for denial by establishing that the company does 
business through a subsidiary, and that the Beneficiary devotes his attentions to the U.S. business 
and its foreign parent company, which together constitute a qualifying multinational organization. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofC-A-CG-. LLC, ID# 662871 (AAO Oct. 11, 2017) 
not prove that the companies are engaged in commercial activity. If we were reviewing an appeal involving a petition 
that had been denied for lack of business activity, we would not accept the company's "active" status as prima ./(Icie 
evidence that the company was doing business. We would require more definitive evidence such as transactional 
documents and income tax returns. Fairness and consistency demand that we adhere to the same standard here. 
4