sustained L-1A Case: Business Information

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Z-I-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 25,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a business information provider, seeks approval of a blanket petition to facilitate the 
transfer of future beneficiaries under the L-1 nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(L). The 
L-1 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, 
executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner has three or more domestic or foreign branches, 
subsidiaries, or affiliates. Specifically, the Director found that the Petitioner had not established a 
qualifying relationship with its sole claimed foreign affiliate. Fm1her, the Director determined that 
one of the Petitioner's claimed domestic offices did not qualify as a branch of the petitioning 
company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that it has the requisite qualifying 
relationship with the foreign entity in question. The Petitioner maintains that it has a foreign atliliate 
and one U.S. branch office, and has otherwise satisfied all requirements for approval of an L-1 
blanket petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the 
United States. 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 affiliate thereof in a 
managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. Section 1 01(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)( 4 )(i) states that a petitioner may file a blanket petition to seek 
continuing approval of itself and some or all of its parent, branches, subsidiaries, and affiliates as 
\ 
.
Matter ofZ-1~, Inc. 
qualifying organizations if: the petitioner and each of those entities are engaged in commercial trade or 
services; the petitioner has an office in the United States that has been doing business for at least one 
year; the petitioner has three or more domestic and foreign branches, subsidiaries, or affiliates; and, the 
petitioner and the other qualifying organizations have obtained approval of petitions for at least 1 0 "L" 
managers, executives, or specialized knowledge professionals during the previous 12 months, or have 
U.S. subsidiaries or affiliates with combined annual sales of at least $25 million, or have a United States 
work force of at least 1,000 employees. 
The Petitioner must provide evidence that all entities for which approval is sought are qualifying 
organizations. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(4)(iv)(B). 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 101(a)(15)(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"). 
An "affiliate" is defined as: (1) one of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by 
the same parent or individual, or (2) 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(L). 
The definition of "subsidiary" includes a legal entity in which a parent owns, directly or indirectly, 
less than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(K). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At issue in this case is whether the Petitioner established that it has three or more domestic and 
foreign branches, subsidiaries, or affiliates. The Petitioner's list of qualifying entities includes the 
Petitioner itself, a Michigan branch office, and an Israeli entity. 1 
The Petitioner claims to have a qualifying affiliate relationship with the Israeli company, which 
wholly owns. The Petitioner claims that who is the Petitioner's CEO, 
founder, and chief scientist, owns less than half of the petitioning entity, but has a controlling 
interest in the company, thereby establishing an affiliate relationship based on ownership and control 
of both entities by the same individual. 
As evidence of the ownership and control of the petitioning company, the Petitioner initially 
submitted: a detailed ownership affidavit from its corporate legal counsel; a copy of 
its capitalization table; stockholder proxies executed by members of the family giving 
all voting rights; the company's second restated certificate of incorporation, which describes 
1 The Petitioner submitted an amended list of entities in response to a Request for Evidence (RFE), which 
included another branch office in New York. The Director determined that this fourth office did not qualify 
as a branch arrd the Petitioner has raised no objection to that finding. The Petitioner has established that it has 
a qualifying branch office in Michigan. 
2 
.
Matter ofZ-1-, Inc. 
the company's five types of common and preferred stock and respective voting rights; and, a copy of 
its 2015 corporate tax return. 
In his affidavit, stated that the family collectively owns approximately 36% (a 
plurality) of all classes of voting stock issued by the Petitioner, as well as 94% of Series A Common 
Stock. Pointing to the voting provisions found in the company's certificate of incorporation, 
emphasized that whoever controls a majority of the Series A Common Stock is able to make 
all corporate governance decisions for the company and in fact controls the company. Finally, 
explained that due to the shareholder proxies granted to him, has the unqualified 
right to vote all ofthe shares held by members of his family. 
The Director found that the capitalization table submitted at the time of filing and the Petitioner's tax 
return both contained information that appeared to be inconsistent. In response to the RFE, the 
Petitioner provided a corrected capitalization table with another detailed 
affidavit from 
He explained that the initial table contained clerical errors, and also explained the discrepancies in 
the Petitioner's tax return based on information provided by the company accountant. 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner had made material changes to the 
capitalization table and therefore did not overcome the concerns raised in the RFE. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship with the Israeli company. 
Upon review, we disagree with the Director's determination. The Petitioner correctly notes on 
appeal that the Director did not acknowledge the detailed and credible explanation submitted by 
who clarified why changes were made to the capitalization table in response to the RFE. The 
Petitioner also submits another affidavit from on appeal, who once again explains the 
voting rights vested with including the special voting rights conveyed by the Petitioner's 
Class A Common Shares. 
Due to concerns regarding the capitalization table, the Director did not reach a clear determination as 
to whether partial ownership and majority control over the Petitioner's Class A Common 
Shares is sufficient to establish his control of the company. After reviewing the relevant evidence, 
we find that the Petitioner has met its burden to show that has sufficient ownership and 
control of the petitioning company to establish an affiliate relationship with the Israeli entity. The 
Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for approval of its blanket L petition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that it has three or more domestic and foreign branches, subsidiaries, or 
affiliates, and that all entities for which blanket approval is sought are qualifying organizations. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter o.fZ-1-, Inc., ID# 695263 (AAO Aug. 25, 2017) 
3