Matter of Aphrodite Investments Limited

This case is before the Commissioner on certification as directed. The petitithier is seeking to classify the beneficiary as an intra-com- pany transferee (L-1) as defined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Im- migration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L), as amended. The petition was denied by the District Director of this Service in Phoenix. Appeal was taken to the Regional Commissioner, Western Region. The Regional Commissioner upheld the decision of the District Director and dismissed the appeal. Aphrodite Investments is an investment holding company head quartered in London, England. The company is owned by three brothers, each of whom possesses approximately a one-third share of the eompany. Aphrodite Investments has created two subsidiary com- panies located in Arizona. The purpose of these companies is to purchase and develop real estate within Arizona for resale. The District Director and Regional Commissioner hold that the beneficiary cannot be classified as an intra-company transferee be- cause he is "an entrepreneur, a speculative investor, and not an em- ployee of an international company." Section 101(a)(15)(L) defines an intra-company transferee as: An alien who immediately preceding the time of his application for admission into the United States, has been employed continuously for one year by a firm or corporation or

本案因指令移送而由专员审理。 申请人寻求依据经修正的《移民与国籍法》第101(a)(15)(L)条、8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L)所定义，将受益人归类为公司内部调任人员（L-1）。该申请被本局凤凰城地区主任驳回。随后向西部地区专员提出上诉。地区专员维持地区主任的决定并驳回上诉。 Aphrodite Investments是一家投资控股公司，总部位于英格兰伦敦。该公司由三兄弟拥有，每人持有该公司约三分之一的股份。Aphrodite Investments在亚利桑那州设立了两家子公司。这些公司的目的是在亚利桑那州购买和开发房地产以供转售。 地区主任和地区专员认为，受益人不能被归类为公司内部调任人员，因为他是“一名企业家、一名投机投资者，而不是一家国际公司的雇员”。第101(a)(15)(L)条将公司内部调任人员定义为： 在其申请进入美国之时紧接之前，已连续一年受雇于一家商号或公司或

Interim Decision #2826

临时决定第2826号

other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his services to the, same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, execu- tive, or involves specialized knowledge ... In the nmiens brief submitted by the Association of Immigration and Nationality Lawyers the principle of clear language enforcement of a statute is properly mentioned. When the meaning of the language of a statute is plain, there is no room for a constructed interpretation. Cominetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917). When relying upon the plain language we look first to relevant definitions within the same title that are also used in the same or similar context. In the absence of such definition the every day usage of the terms becomes important. The Regional Commissioner attempted to establish the everyday usage of a term he thought was relevant to the L-1 statute. How ever "employee" is not used in section 101(a)(15)(L). The term used is "employed." The present tense "employ" is defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, in part, as "to provide with a job that pays wages or a salary." If we were to adopt the definition of "employee" we would exclude some of the very people that the statute intends to benefit: executives. Webster's defines "employee" to be "one employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a position below the executive level." In Matter of M—, 8 I&N Dec. 24 (BIA 1958; A.G. 1958), precedent was established which held that the sole stockholder of a corporation was able to be employed by that corporation as the corporation has a separate legal entity from its owners or even its sole owner. While that case concerned a visa petition for preference classification, I find its conclusions are equally valid in other areas of concern where an employer/employee relationship needs to be examined by the Service. The Regional Commissioner found that the requisite relationship exists between Aphrodite Investments and MN&S Corporation. The petitioner's statements established that the beneficiary was employed for the statutory period by Aphrodite Investments in a managerial position for their subsidiary in the United States. Therefore, the following order will be entered. ORDER' The nonimmigrant visa petition be approved to accord the beneficiary classification as an intra-company transferee.

其他法律实体或其关联机构或子公司，并寻求临时进入美国以继续向同一雇主或其子公司或关联机构提供服务，且其身份为管理性、行政性或涉及专业知识…… 在移民与国籍律师协会提交的法庭之友意见书中，正确提及了法规清晰语言执行原则。当法规语言的含义是明确的，就没有进行推定解释的空间。Cominetti v. United States，242 U.S. 470（1917）。在依据清晰语言时，我们首先查看同一标题内也在相同或类似语境中使用的相关定义。在缺乏此类定义时，术语的日常用法就变得重要。 地区专员试图确立一个他认为与L-1法规相关的术语的日常用法。然而，第101(a)(15)(L)条并未使用“employee”（雇员）。所使用的术语是“employed”（受雇）。现在时“employ”在《韦氏新大学词典》中的部分定义是“提供一份支付工资或薪金的工作”。如果我们采用“employee”的定义，我们就会排除法规意图惠及的某些人：行政人员。《韦氏词典》将“employee”定义为“通常为工资或薪金而受雇于他人且职位低于行政级别的人”。 在Matter of M—，8 I&N Dec. 24（BIA 1958；A.G. 1958）中确立的先例认定，公司的唯一股东能够受雇于该公司，因为公司与其所有者甚至其唯一所有者是独立的法律实体。虽然该案涉及优先类别的签证申请，但我认为其结论在本局需要审查雇主/雇员关系的其他相关领域同样有效。 地区专员认定Aphrodite Investments与MN&S Corporation之间存在必要的关系。申请人的陈述证明，受益人在法定期间内受雇于Aphrodite Investments，为其在美国的子公司担任管理职位。 因此，将作出以下命令。 命令：批准该非移民签证申请，给予受益人公司内部调任人员的分类。