sustained L-1A Case: Market Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19553755 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Blanket L Approval 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 18, 2022 
The Petitioner, a market research technology company, seeks approval of its blanket petition to 
facilitate the transfer of employees under the L-1 nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(L) and section 214(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that it has three or more domestic and foreign branches, subsidiaries, or affiliates 
that are engaged in commercial trade or services. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 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). The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this 
matter de nova. See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 
review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(c)(2)(A) of the Act authorizes a procedure under which a qualifying importing employer 
may file a blanket petition to facilitate the transfer of L-1 intracompany transferees as an alternative 
to filing of individual petitions on behalf of such employees. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(4)(i) allows a petitioner to file a blanket petition to seek 
continuing approval of itself and some or all of its parent, branches, subsidiaries , and affiliates as 
qualifying organizations if: 
(A) The petitioner and each of those entities are engaged in commercial trade or 
services; 
(B) The petitioner has an office in the United States that has been doing business for at 
least one year; 
(C) The petitioner has three or more domestic and foreign branches, subsidiaries , or 
affiliates; and, 
(D) The petitioner and the other qualifying organizations have obtained approval of 
petitions for at least ten "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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(I) defines a "parent" as a firm, corporation or other legal 
entity which has subsidiaries. The definition of "subsidiary" includes a legal entity in which a parent 
owns, directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity, and fact controls the entity. 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(K). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that it has three or more domestic and 
foreign branches, subsidiaries, or affiliates that are engaged in commercial trade or services. The 
Director concluded that the Petitioner has only one qualifying foreign entity that is also a "commercial 
entity" and therefore concluded that the Petitioner did not meet all requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(4)(i)(A)-(D). 
The Petitioner's initial list of qualifying entities included the Petitioner itself as well as the following 
foreign entities: 
Entities directly owned by the Petitioner: 
Entities indirectly owned by the Petitioner throuohl 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
I 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) advising the Petitioner that it would need to 
supplement the record with additional documentation of the ownership and control of each entity, 
evidence that all listed entities are doing business as defined in the regulations, and evidence that the 
listed entities are engaged in "commercial trade or services." 
The Petitioner provided the requested evidence, but conceded that its wholly owned subsidiary, 
I serves as a "true holding company" for most of its 
overseas operating companies, and as such does not meet the definition of "doing business" and is not 
"engaged in commercial trade or services." The Petitioner submitted a revised schedule of domestic 
and foreign entities to be included on its blanket L petition. The amended list of qualifying entities 
excludes! I 
2 
The Director denied the petition. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner established that it 
directly owns a controlling interest in both I I ( an operating 
company engaged in commercial services) and I I (a holding 
company). The Director also determined that the Petitioner demonstrated that I I I I wholly owns five subsidiary companies (located in the United Kingdom, 
Germany, Czech Republic, Singapore, and Australia) and that these five entities are engaged in 
commercial services. 
However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with only one 
commercial entity, and therefore does not meet the requirement 
stated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(4)(i)(C). He explained that "as the non-commercial holding company 
possesses ownership and controlling interest of the indicated remaining commercial entities, a 
qualifying affiliate relationship (as defined in the regulations) is not demonstrated." 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Director erred by failing to recognize the indirect parent­
subsidiary relationship between the Petitioner and the five foreign subsidiaries that it wholly owns 
through the United Kingdom holding company. The Petitioner maintains that the fact that those 
subsidiaries are directly owned by an entity that is not engaged in "commercial trade and services" 
does not prevent them from meeting the definition of "qualifying organization" for the purposes of 
inclusion on its blanket petition. We agree with the Petitioner that the Director erred in concluding 
that the Petitioner does not meet the eligibility requirements for a blanket L petition approval at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(4)(i)(A)-(D). 
The Petitioner has established that it has six qualifying foreign subsidiaries which meet all 
requirements for inclusion on a blanket petition. Although five of those subsidiaries are owned 
indirectly through a foreign holding company that does not qualify for inclusion in the blanket petition, 
this corporate structure does not, by extension, disqualify those five entities from meeting the 
definition of"subsidiary" (which allows for indirect ownership by a parent company) or the definition 
of "qualifying organization." 
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., Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 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. Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 
I&N Dec. at 595. 
The record establishes that the operating companies in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, 
Czech Republic, and Singapore are ultimately wholly owned and controlled by the Petitioner (thus 
establishing a parent-subsidiary relationship), that they are doing business as defined in the 
regulations, and that they are otherwise engaged in "commercial trade or services." The Petitioner 
has therefore established that it meets the requirements for a blanket petition approval at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(4)(i)(A)-(C). Further, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner reported annual domestic 
3 
sales of $81. 7 million on its latest corporate federal tax return and therefore satisfies the requirement 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(4)(i)(D). 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and sustain the appeal. The blanket L approval 
notice should include all entities listed on the amended schedule of qualifying entities provided in 
response to the RFE. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
4