Date of Decision: August 26, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Consulting and Professional Services
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Manager
Field: Consulting and Professional Services
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Motion Outcome: Motion to Reopen Denied
Appeal Outcome: Sustained
Case Overview
The petitioner, a consulting and professional services company, sought to employ the beneficiary as a manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.
The Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s former foreign employer. The petitioner filed a motion to reopen, which was subsequently denied. The case was then appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for further review.
Upon de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office determined that the petitioner met its burden of proof and sustained the appeal.
Key Issues
The central issue in this case was whether the petitioner demonstrated a qualifying relationship between the U.S. entity and the foreign employer. The director found that while an L-1A blanket petition established a qualifying relationship in 2019, the petitioner did not sufficiently verify that the relationship still existed at the time of the I-140 petition’s filing in March 2023.
The petitioner argued that the director applied an incorrect definition of affiliates and contended that both entities qualified as affiliates because they operated under the same internationally recognized name. The petitioner provided additional evidence on appeal to support its claim, demonstrating that both the U.S. and foreign entities were members of a worldwide coordinating organization owned and controlled by member firms.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office determined that the petitioner successfully established a qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities. The review found that the director had incorrectly applied the definition of affiliates, failing to consider regulatory provisions specific to accounting and consulting firms operating under a globally recognized brand.
The petitioner submitted documentation demonstrating that both entities provided accounting and consulting services under the same internationally recognized name and were governed by a global coordinating body. Based on the totality of the evidence, the Administrative Appeals Office found that the petitioner had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a qualifying relationship existed.
Supporting Evidence
- Organizational documentation establishing the petitioner’s membership in a global consulting network
- Evidence of branding and service marketing under a shared internationally recognized name
- Details of the worldwide coordinating organization governing both the U.S. and foreign entities
- Prior L-1A blanket petition approval confirming the qualifying relationship as of 2019
- Additional supporting documents verifying continued affiliation between the petitioner and the foreign employer
Additional Notes
The Administrative Appeals Office emphasized that petitioners seeking EB-1C classification under the multinational manager or executive category must provide clear and verifiable evidence of a qualifying relationship. The decision reinforced that firms operating under a global network with shared branding and governance may qualify as affiliates under existing regulations.
The ruling also highlighted the importance of accurately applying regulatory definitions, noting that misinterpretation by adjudicating officers can result in improper denials that require correction on appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal sustained.
Reasoning: The petitioner successfully established a qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities, and the director’s application of affiliate requirements was found to be incorrect.
