sustained L-1A Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19727391 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 18, 2022 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of personal transporters, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its Senior Director of Product Management and Marketing under the L-lA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the previously submitted evidence demonstrates it has a 
qualifying affiliate relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer based on common indirect 
ownership by the same parent company. 
In these proceedings, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova review, we conclude that the Petitioner has met this 
burden. 1 Accordingly, we will sustain the appeal. 
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(1)(1)(ii) (providing definitions of the terms "parent," "branch," "subsidiary," 
and "affiliate") . 
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, 
1 The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 
I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
e.g., Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Siemens Med. 
Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 1986); Matter of 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. Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 
at 595. Control may be de Jure by reason of ownership of more than 50 percent of outstanding stocks 
of the other entity or it may be defacto by reason of control of voting shares through partial ownership 
and possession of proxy votes. Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. at 293. 
For purposes of this nonimmigrant classification, the definition of "affiliate" includes one of two 
subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or individual. 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(l)(l)(ii)(L)(l). A "parent" is a firm, corporation or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(I). The definition of "subsidiary" includes 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(K) (emphasis added). 
The Petitioner has consistently explained that it has an affiliate relationship with the Beneficiary's 
forei n em lo er based on common, indirect ownership by the same parent companyj I 
S ecificall the Petitioner provided evidence thatl I owns 100% 
of the shares o _________ _., a U.S. com an which wholly owns the Petitioner. In 
addition, the Petitioner provided evidence tha owns 100° of the shares of 
I I which wholly owns 
the entity that employed the Beneficiary in China. 
Based on this evidence, the record establishes that the petitioning U.S. entity and I I are 
both subsidiaries of I because it indirectly owns more than half of each entity and has 
de Jure control of both entities. As both the U.S. and foreign entities are subsidiaries that are owned 
and controlled by the same parent, they are affiliates according to the definition of the term at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(L)(]). 
The Director acknowledged in his decision that the "record and supportin documents" establish that 
bothl and _____ are owned b and that these 
two intermediary entities own the petitioning entity and ____ respectively. The Director 
appears to have determined that no affiliate relationship exists because the Beneficiary's current and 
proposed employers are not directly owned by the same parent, but the regulatory definition of 
affiliate, when read with the definitions of parent and subsidiary, does not require affiliates to share a 
common direct parent company. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence 
that it has a qualifying affiliate relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer and has therefore 
overcome the sole ground for denial of the petition. Accordingly, we will sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2