EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives) USCIS Appeal Review – General Manager – OCT242024_01B4203

Date of Decision: October 24, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Marketing Consulting Services

Beneficiary Information

Profession: General Manager
Field: Marketing Consulting Services
Nationality: Not Specified

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

Case Overview

The petitioner, a marketing consulting services company, sought to employ the beneficiary as a general manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.

The Texas Service Center denied the petition on multiple grounds, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s former foreign employer, that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States, that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, and that the petitioner had the ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage.

On appeal, the Administrative Appeals Office conducted a de novo review but limited its analysis to the qualifying relationship, as this issue was dispositive. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner did not establish that it had a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer.

Key Issues

The primary issue was whether the petitioner demonstrated a qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities. The petitioner asserted that it was wholly owned by the foreign employer, making them a parent-subsidiary entity. However, the petitioner provided minimal supporting documentation to substantiate this claim.

The Texas Service Center issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking the petitioner to provide additional documentation, including U.S. tax returns, articles of organization, operating agreements, meeting minutes, documentation of ownership consideration, and other evidence of the foreign employer’s ownership.

In response, the petitioner submitted a company agreement executed in 2020, which indicated in Schedule A that the foreign employer owned 100% of the petitioner. However, the section documenting the amount of capital contribution for this ownership interest was left blank. Additionally, the petitioner submitted a unanimous written consent document stating that ownership certificates would be issued to the foreign employer “upon receipt of consideration.”

The petitioner also provided a 2022 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, in which the company answered “No” when asked whether any foreign or domestic organization owned more than 20% of the corporation’s stock. This discrepancy led the director to conclude that the petitioner was not a subsidiary of the foreign employer.

On appeal, the petitioner contended that its tax return contained an accounting error, which it later corrected, and submitted an affidavit from the beneficiary explaining the mistake. The petitioner also provided tax returns from 2020, 2021, and 2023, showing the foreign employer as the 100% owner of the U.S. entity.

USCIS Findings

The Administrative Appeals Office determined that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that it was wholly owned by the foreign employer, and therefore, a qualifying relationship did not exist.

Key findings included:

  • The company agreement lacked documentation of capital contribution, leaving uncertainty about whether ownership was actually transferred.
  • The petitioner did not provide membership certificates, despite its own documents stating they would be issued upon payment of ownership consideration.
  • There was no documentation substantiating that the foreign employer made a capital contribution or the amount of such a contribution.
  • The petitioner’s IRS Forms 1120 showed stock ownership, which applies to corporations, while the petitioner was structured as a limited liability company. The lack of relevant documentation for an LLC further weakened the qualifying relationship claim.
  • The petitioner failed to reconcile discrepancies in its documentation with independent, objective evidence.

As a result, the Administrative Appeals Office upheld the director’s decision and dismissed the appeal without addressing the other grounds for denial.

Supporting Evidence

  • Company agreement listing the foreign employer as the 100% owner
  • Unanimous written consent document regarding ownership interest
  • IRS Forms 1120 from 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023
  • Affidavit from the beneficiary regarding the ownership discrepancy
  • Organizational records submitted in response to the RFE

Additional Notes

The Administrative Appeals Office emphasized that petitioners must provide verifiable and consistent documentation to establish a qualifying relationship. The decision reaffirmed that ownership and control are central factors in determining whether a parent-subsidiary or affiliate relationship exists.

Additionally, the ruling highlighted that discrepancies in tax returns, ownership records, and corporate filings must be resolved with objective, independent evidence rather than affidavits or assertions. The petitioner’s failure to provide full documentation on ownership and control resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.

Conclusion

Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to establish that it had a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s former foreign employer. The evidence submitted was inconsistent, and the petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation verifying ownership and control.

Download the Full Petition Review Here

Emmanuel Uwakwe
Emmanuel Uwakwe

I studied Electrical and Electronics Engineering and have a huge passion for tech related stuff :)

Articles: 1543

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *