dismissed L-1A Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-C-1-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 5. 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer and seller of electrical components, industrial harnesses, and cables, 
seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its operational purchasing manager under the L-1 A 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 10J(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation 
or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to 
the United States to work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required. that: (I) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity; (2) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity; (3) the Beneficiary has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the tiling of the petition: ( 4) it 
has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer; and ( 5) it and the foreign 
employer are doing business as defined by the regulations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director's conclusions 
were based on an incomplete review of the record and were made in error. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification. a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive. or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition. the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or at1iliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. The 
petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education. training. and employment 
qualify him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 ). 
Matter of E-C-1-
II. U.S. AND FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The tirst issue we will address is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary acts in a 
managerial capacity abroad and would act in such a capacity in the United States. The Petitioner 
states that the Beneficiary's current foreign and proposed U.S. roles are identicaL as such. given the 
same duties and subordinates in both these capacities, we will not address his foreign and U.S. 
employment in separate discussions. Further, the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary has 
been or would be employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether 
the Beneficiary has and will be employed in a managerial capacity. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization: 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory. professional, or managerial employees. or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization: has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed: and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) takes into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. See section IOI(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
In denying the petition on these grounds, the Director stated that the Beneticiary's foreign and U.S. 
duties were vague and did not demonstrate his actual tasks on a day-to-day basis. Further, the 
Director emphasized that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been or would be 
supervising professional subordinates as asserted. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
evidence and contends that it demonstrates that the Beneticiary has been and will be employed in a 
managerial capacity with oversight of professional subordinates. Further, the Petitioner indicates 
that the Beneficiary qualities as a function manager overseeing an essential function of the 
organization. 
When examining the managerial capacity of the Beneficiary, we will review the Petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The Petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial 
capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(ii). Beyond the required position descriptions, USC IS 
examines the companies' respective organizational structures. the duties of a beneticiary's 
subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing 
operational duties, the nature of the businesses. and any other factors that will contribute to 
understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in each business. Accordingly, we will discuss 
evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of the nature of the businesses 
and their staffing levels. 
2 
Matter of E-C-1-
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of managerial capacity. the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary 
will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World. Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th 
Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will 
be primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside 
the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that it and the Beneficiary's foreign employer are legal entities part of the same 
corporate group, which is engaged in ''manufacturing wire harnesses and leads, complex harness 
sub-assemblies, radiant glass heaters, and power cords."' The Petitioner indicated that both 
companies manufacture products "at our facilities worldwide and distribute to top-tier customers in a 
variety of industries." The Petitioner noted that the greater multinational corporation generates 
annual income of over $670 million and that it employs more than 14.000 individuals. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's position abroad "mirrors the senior position he will 
assume in [the United States],'' further noting that the positions are ''closely aligned and integrated."' 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary "will be responsible for guiding the development and 
management of the company's purchasing function,'' including '·supporting plant production 
requirements. supplier management, local cost improvement. and functional support for operations 
support with suppliers." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary is, and would be. responsible 
for overseeing and coordinating the work of a team of "operational buyers,'' providing guidance to 
them. issuing them instructions, and handling personnel matters for these subordinates. 
In a provided duty description, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary devotes 10% of his time to 
interfacing with "Commodity Directors" on the company's commodity strategy, another 5% on 
ensuring that commodity director "strategies and Long Tenn Contracts are adequately disclosed," 
and I 0% on defining and overseeing the development of needed company processes. Further. the 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary spends 20% of his time on supporting the supply chain 
organization, including "exercising responsibility for "spot" buys and ·'supplier-expediting." The 
Petitioner also explained that the Beneficiary is responsible 20% of the time for ''defining key 
performance indicators (KP!s) to assure that results align with ''company strategy," and 10% of the 
time monitoring these indicators. In addition. the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary devotes 5% 
of his time to providing the "right level of training to the Operational Buyer Team,'' and another 5% 
providing senior management with actions plans. Lastly, the Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary spends 5% of his time collaborating with other managers in the company to adjust and 
modify processes to align with these departments and I 0% on "developing plans for exchanging best 
practices and nurturing the cooperation between the International Team members." 
The Beneficiary's duty description includes specific examples regarding his non-qualifying 
operational tasks. For instance. the duty description indicates that the Beneficiary devotes 20% of 
his time to ''spot buys·· and ·'supplier expediting·· and another 10% to "monitoring key indicators,"' 
Maller of E-C-1-
duties indicative of a focus on non-qualifying operational duties related to the provision of services. 
Further, the Beneficiary's submitted resume appears to include several other operational level tasks. 
such as sourcing and purchasing "RM's required for production.·· "coordinating RM purchases and 
secur[ing] adequate ETA's for on time implementation of new projects." progress tracking of 
savings, ensuring that "contracts/quotes are implemented and recorded by closely monitoring on a 
weekly and monthly basis," and providing support to the procurement department "when suppliers 
fail to collaborate." 
In contrast, the Petitioner provided few specifics and little supporting documentation to demonstrate 
the Beneficiary's performance of managerial level duties, such as examples of strategies he has 
implemented for '·commodity directors,'' long term contracts he has communicated to his 
subordinates, company processes he has developed. training he has provided. action plans he has 
formulated for senior management. or processes he has aligned with other departments. Specifics 
are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or 
managerial in nature. otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the 
regulations. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava. 724 F. Supp. II 03, II 08 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). aff"d, 905 
F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
On whole, the lack of detail and supporting evidence related to the Beneficiary's asserted managerial 
duties leaves question as to whether he primarily performs these tasks. The Petitioner did not 
provide examples or documentation reflecting his delegation of day-to-day non-qualifying 
operational tasks to his asserted subordinates. The Beneficiary's duties are not reflective of a higher 
level of discretion assigned to managerial level position acting at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to a function managed. In fact, the Beneficiary's duties 
indicate that he takes direction on strategy from '·commodity directors," that he is responsible for 
"supporting" the supply chain organization. and for providing action plans to senior managers. 
These duties are not indicative of a senior level manager who is claimed to be "on the same level as 
other executive and managers," but of an employee with limited discretion tasked with day-to-day 
operational level tasks. 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily'' managerial or executive. See sections 
I 01 (a)( 44 )(A) and (B) of the Act. Here. the Petitioner does not credibly documertt what proportion 
of the Beneficiary's duties would be managerial functions and what proportion would be non­
qualifying. Even though the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the 
organization, its claim that he will manage a component of the business does not necessarily 
establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within 
the meaning of section 10l(a)(44) of the Act. We must look beyond the position descriptions to 
determine that his actual duties would be primarily managerial in nature. 
4 
.
Maller(?! E-C-1-
B. Staffing and Operations 
In support of the petition the Petitioner provided an organizational cha11 reflecting that the 
Beneficiary supervises six employees devoted to the following vaguely stated functions: two 
employees tasked with "accessory/mise; two devoted to "term/comm, " a material 
transfer coordinator, and another employee tasked with "wire/cable & misc.'" The Petitioner 
clarified in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) that the Beneficiary's subordinates 
are "operational buyers" supporting the company's operations in Mexico, the United States. and 
Canada . As noted, the Beneficiary would continue to supervise 
the same employees if transferred to 
the United States. 
A primary assertion of the Petitioner is that the Beneficiary qualities as a manager based on his 
supervision of professional subordinates. The statutory definition of "managerial capacity' ' allows 
for both "personnel managers " and "function managers.'' See section IOI(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the 
Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the 
word "manager," the statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting 
in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the 
employees supervised are professional." Section 1 01 (a)( 44 )(A)(iv) of the Act. If a beneficiary 
directly supervises other employees , the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and tire 
those employees , or recommend those actions , and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(J) . 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's subordinate "operational buyers'' are professionals who 
perform "complex job duties·· and that these positions involve "a significant degree of sophistication, 
education, and training." The Petitioner indicated that three of the five operational buyers hold 
bachelor 's degrees, including degrees in economics , psychology, and business administration. 
In evaluating whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the 
subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of 
endeavor . (l 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "profession" to mean ''any occupation tor which a 
U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the 
occupation ''). Section I Ol(a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he term profession shall include but not 
be limited to architects , engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges , academies, or seminaries .'' 
First, we note that the Petitioner has not provided supporting evidence to substantiate that the 
Beneficiary's subordinates hold their asserted bachelor's degrees or that the foreign entity or 
Petitioner employ these claimed subordinates . Further, the Petitioner has not provided 
comprehensive duty descriptions tor these subordinates to demonstrate that bachelor's degrees are 
required for these positions, despite these buyers having different responsibilities such as 
"accessory /mise, "term/comm, '' material transfer coordination , and "wire/cable & 
misc." It is also noteworthy that not all of the operational buyers subordinate to the Beneficiary hold 
5 
Matter of E-C-1-
bachelor's degrees. and those which do have them in varying fields. This indicates that not only is a 
bachelor's degree not required for these positions, but that if it were, the degree could be non­
specific to the profession. Therefore. the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary 
supervises professional subordinates holding and requiring specific bachelor's degrees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a revised organizational chart indicating the Beneficiary's 
supervision of a much larger organization, including sixteen employees and multiple tiers of 
management. As noted, the Petitioner previously asserted that the Beneficiary oversaw five or six 
operational buyers, and in tum, asserted that these represented professional positions requiring a 
bachelor's degree. The Petitioner made no mention of these employees having subordinates of their 
own nor did it claim that they perform supervisory duties. This material discrepancy leaves question 
as to the Beneficiary's claimed capacity and the updated organizational chart submitted on appeal. 
The Petitioner must resolve discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Therefore, 
the new chart, by itself, is insufticient to show that the Beneficiary's role involves the supervision of 
subordinate supervisors or managers. The Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary qualities as 
a personnel manager. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner also indicated on the record that the Beneficiary's role is "multi-faceted'' 
and indicated that he is tasked with overseeing an essential function. The term "function manager'' 
applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but 
instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See 
section IOI(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an 
essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in managing the essential 
function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(I) the function is a clearly defined 
activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e .. core to the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily 
manage, as opposed to perform, the function; ( 4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the beneficiary will 
exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Maller o(G- Inc .. Adopted Decision 
2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8. 2017). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary acts, or will act, as a function manager. 
First, we emphasize that the Beneficiary's duty description, includes a number of specific non­
qualifying operational duties, but provides little detail or explanation related to his performance of 
managerial level duties. As we noted, the duty description suggests that the Beneficiary exercises 
limited discretion and receives direction on strategy from "commodity directors" and "senior 
management.'' As such, there is little corroboration that the Beneficiary acts at a senior level within 
the organizational hierarchy and that he exercises discretion over his function. In addition. the 
Petitioner has not clearly defined the Beneficiary's function. Although it states he is tasked with 
purchasing commodities, the Petitioner also indicates that it is a large multi-million dollar 
corporation with thousands of employees. Without further explanation and evidence. it is therefore 
not clear how the Beneficiary"s particular sourcing group is essential to the organization. Therefore. 
.
Matter of £-C-1-
absent additional supporting evidence, we do not find that the Petitioner has demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary acts, or will act in the United States, as a function manager. 
The evidence indicates that the Beneficiary is likely significantly involved in operational matters of 
the business in his role abroad and it has submitted little evidence to indicate that he delegates or will 
delegate most of these operational tasks to subordinates . It has also not sufliciently clarified or 
documented his managerial level tasks. In addition, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary primarily oversees , or will oversee , managerial , supervisory, or professional 
subordinates . As such, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary has been or would be 
employed in a qualifying managerial capacity. For these reason s, the appeal will be dismissed . 
III. ONE YEAR OF EMPLOYM ENT ABROAD 
The next issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
has at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization 
within the three years preceding the tiling ofthe petition . See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(l)(l)(ii)(A) indicates in pertinent part that: 
An alien who. within three years preceding the time of his or her application for 
admission into the United States , has been employed abroad continuously for one 
year by a fim1 or corporation or other legal entity or parent , branch , affiliate or 
subsidiary thereof , and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to 
render his or her services to a branch of the same employer or a parent , affiliate , or 
subsidiary thereof in a capacity that is managerial , executive or involves speciali zed 
knowledge. Periods spent in the United States in lawful status for a branch of the 
same employer or a parent. affiliate, or subsidiary thereof and brief trips to the United 
States for business or pleasure shall not be interruptive of the one year of continuous 
employment abroad but such periods shall not be counted toward fulfillment of that 
requirement. 
In the Form I-129 , the Petitioner listed the Beneficiary ' s foreign emplo yer as 
indicating that he had been working for this 
company abroad since January 2015 .1 The Petitioner stated in a support letter that it holds a 99% 
ownership interest in this foreign entity. The Beneficiary ' s resume reflected that 
the Beneficiary had 
been employed by a company called from April 2012 to December 2014. 
In response to the Director's RFE , the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's paystubs issued by 
These payment stubs 
documented payments made to him during four one-week pay periods in January 2016. May 2016, 
September 2016, and December 2016. The paystubs also indicated that the Beneficiar y' s '"enter on 
duty date" was April 9, 2012 . 
1 We note that the petition was filed on March 2, 2017. 
.
Maller of E-C-1-
In denying the petition on this ground, the Director emphasized that the Petitioner did not provide 
evidence of the Beneficiary's employment with the company identified as his foreign employer on 
the Form 1-129. Therefore, the Director found the Petitioner did not demonstrate his one year of 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization. On appeaL the Petitioner emphasizes that the 
Director was mistaken as to the foreign legal entities and indicates that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer is emphasizing that it and are both part of the 
same greater corporate structure. On appeal , the Petitioner amends the Form 1-129 to reflect that the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer is 
The Petitioner has provided conflicting and incomplete statements regarding the Beneficiary" s 
asserted foreign employer , leaving question that he has been employed by a qualifying entity tor the 
required one year period. The Petitioner indicated in the petition , and elsewhere on the record, that 
the Beneficiary had been employed abroad by since January 2015 . The 
Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary had been employed by from April 
2012 to December 2014. We note that submitted paystubs indicate that the Beneficiary entered on 
duty with the company listed in his 2016 paystubs, on April 9, 2012 . As such , it 
is reasonable to conclude that and may be the same 
company. The Petitioner indicated throughout the record that the Beneficiary had been employed by 
for several years , but now only asserts on appeal that has employer was in fact 
However, the Petitioner does not articulate the reasons for these discrepancies. 
Again, the Petitioner must resolve discrepancies in the record with independent. objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92 . 
Further, even if we are to accept that is the Beneficiary 's actual foreign employer, 
it has provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate his employment with this foreign entity for one 
year in the previous three years preceding the petition. The Petitioner provided only tour weeks of 
paystubs from 2016, documentation that does not sufficiently establish his employment abroad tor 
the required one year. Therefore , the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has at least 
one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three 
years preceding the filing of the petition. For this additional reason, the appeal will be dismissed . 
IV. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The next issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that it 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 (i.e. one entity with "branch" 
offices) , or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as ''affiliates ." See section IOI(a)(l5)(L) of the 
Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii) (providing definitions of the terms ''parent " "branch.'' 
''subsidiary," and "affiliate"). 
.
Af·atter of E-C-1-
As noted in the previous section, there is confusion on the record as to the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer. The Petitioner indicated in the petition and throughout the record that the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer is but now states on appeal that it is 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(I) defines the terms "parenf' as a "tirm, corporation. or 
other legal entity that has subsidiaries, while 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l )(ii)(L) defines subsidiary as 
follows:'' 
A "subsidiary'' is 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. 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(K). 
Regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities. See. 
e.g, ll.latter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 l&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); 1'tfatter of Siemens Med. 
Sys .. Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 1986); Matter (~(Hughes. 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). 
Ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an entity with full 
power and authority to control; control means the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct 
the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Mal!er o{Church Scientology Jnt 1, 19 
l&N Dec. at 595. 
In concluding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate a qualifying relationship, the Director stated 
that it did not submit sutlicient evidence demonstrating the foreign entity's ownership. We concur 
with the Director's assessment. As a preliminary matter, as we have noted, there is question as to 
the actual identity of the foreign employer, and the Petitioner does not submit sufficient explanation 
or evidence to overcome this concern on appeal. Regardless, the Petitioner provides little evidence 
establishing ownership in either of the Beneficiary's stated foreign employers. For instance, the 
Petitioner did not provide stock certificates or membership certificates, articles of incorporation or 
operating agreements, minutes of relevant annual shareholder or member meetings, or other such 
relevant corporate documentation. Without full disclosure of all relevant documents. we are unable 
to determine the elements of ownership and control. See Matter r?fSiemens Med ,~vs .. Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. 362 (Comm'r 1962). 
The Petitioner provides the bylaws for on appeal, but this document makes no 
reference to this entity's ownership.. In total, the Petitioner has not provided sufticient evidence to 
establish its ownership of the Beneficiary's foreign employer. For this additional reason, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
9 
Matter of E-C-1-
V. U.S. AND FOREIGN EMPLOYERS DOING BUSINESS 
The Director also denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that it and the 
foreign employer were doing business as defined by the regulations. The regulations define a 
qualifying organization as one doing business in the United States and in at least one other country. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(G). "Doing business," is defined as the regular, systematic. and 
continuous provision of goods or services. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(H). 
Upon review, we determine that the Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 
the Petitioner, and the Beneficiary"s two asserted foreign employers, are more likely than not doing 
business. For instance, in the case of the Petitioner, it has submitted 2015 and 2016 financial 
statements indicating that its parent company, and by extension the Petitioner, earns significant 
revenue. Further, the Petitioner submits Mexican federal corporate tax documentation reflecting that 
both asserted foreign employers earn substantial revenue. Therefore, the Director's decision as to 
these issues is hereby withdrawn. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary acts in a 
managerial capacity abroad or that he will act in a managerial capacity in the United States, that the 
Beneficiary has at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying 
organization within the three years preceding the tiling of the petition, and that the Petitioner has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary"s foreign employer. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of E-C-1-, ID# 959062 (AAO Feb. 5, 2018) 
10