Matter of Leacheng International, Inc.

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015) Interim Decision #3830

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015) 临时决定 #3830

Decided April 9, 2015 1

2015年4月9日裁定 1

U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

美国国土安全部 美国公民及移民服务局

Administrative Appeals Office

行政上诉办公室

(1) The definition of “doing business” at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) (2014) contains no

(1) 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) (2014) 中“doing business”（经营业务）的定义不包含

requirement that a petitioner for a multinational manager or executive must provide goods and or services to an unaffiliated third party. (2) A petitioner may establish that it is “doing business” by demonstrating that it is

任何要求，即跨国公司经理或高管的申请人必须向无关联第三方提供商品和/或服务。 (2) 申请人可以通过证明其以常规、系统和持续的方式向其跨国组织内的关联公司提供商品和/或服务，来确立其正在“doing business”（经营业务）。 代表申请人：Alan Lee，Esquire，纽约州纽约市

providing goods and/or services in a regular, systematic, and continuous manner to related companies within its multinational organization. ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Alan Lee, Esquire, New York, New York

申请人是中国服装制造公司的美国子公司，该公司提交了外籍工人移民申请（I-140表格），以依据《移民与国籍法》第203(b)(1)(C)条，8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(1)(C) (2012)，将受益人归类为跨国公司经理或高管。申请人寻求聘用受益人担任副总经理职位。德克萨斯服务中心主任（“主任”）拒绝了该申请，认定申请人未能证明截至申请提交之日其已经营业务至少1年。申请人向行政上诉办公室（“AAO”）提出的上诉将获支持。

The petitioner is a United States subsidiary of a Chinese clothing manufacturing company that filed an Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager or executive pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(1)(C) (2012). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of deputy general manager. The Texas Service Center Director (“Director”) denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that it had been doing business for at least 1 year as of the date the petition was filed. The petitioner’s appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) will be sustained.

申请人是中国服装制造公司的美国子公司，该公司提交了外籍工人移民申请（I-140表格），以依据《移民与国籍法》第203(b)(1)(C)条，8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(1)(C) (2012)，将受益人归类为跨国公司经理或高管。申请人寻求聘用受益人担任副总经理职位。德克萨斯服务中心主任（“主任”）拒绝了该申请，认定申请人未能证明截至申请提交之日其已经营业务至少1年。申请人向行政上诉办公室（“AAO”）提出的上诉将获支持。

I. APPLICABLE LAW Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part:

I. 适用法律 该法第203(b)条相关部分规定：

(1) Priority workers Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): . . . . (C) Certain multinational executives and managers

(1) 优先工作者 签证应首先提供给……符合下列(A)至(C)项中任一项所述的外国人： …… (C) 某些跨国公司高管和经理

1 This decision was originally entered on March 27, 2014. The matter has been reopened on the Administrative Appeals Office’s own motion for the limited purpose of making revisions for designation of this decision as precedent.

1 本决定最初于2014年3月27日作出。行政上诉办公室自行动议重新审理本事项，仅限于为使本决定被指定为先例而进行修订。

532

532

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015) Interim Decision #3830

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015) 临时决定 #3830

An alien is described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding

如果外国人在其根据本项申请分类和获准进入美国之前的3年内，已受雇于一家商号、公司或其他法律实体或其关联公司或子公司至少1年，且该外国人寻求进入美国以继续向同一雇主或其子公司或关联公司提供服务，担任管理或高管职务，则该外国人属于本项所述。

the time of the alien’s application for classification and admission into the United States under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and the alien seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D) (2014), the petitioner must establish that it has been doing business for at least 1 year. In turn, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) provides that “[d]oing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services by a firm, corporation, or other entity and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office.”

如果外国人在其根据本项申请分类和获准进入美国之前的3年内，已受雇于一家商号、公司或其他法律实体或其关联公司或子公司至少1年，且该外国人寻求进入美国以继续向同一雇主或其子公司或关联公司提供服务，担任管理或高管职务，则该外国人属于本项所述。 依据 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D) (2014)，申请人必须证明其已经营业务至少1年。相应地，8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) 规定，“[d]oing business（经营业务）指商号、公司或其他实体常规、系统和持续地提供商品和/或服务，且不包括仅存在代理人或办公室。”

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The petitioner is an affiliate of the beneficiary’s former Hong Kong employer, both of which are owned by the petitioner’s Chinese parent company. Established in New York in 2008, the petitioner imports and sells the parent company’s products to United States customers, primarily major clothing retailers. The petitioner directly performed these sales activities through 2011. However, beginning on or about January 2012, it has provided marketing, sales, and shipping services in the United States pursuant to a service agreement with its Hong Kong affiliate. The petitioner submitted a service agreement with its affiliate, which indicates that the petitioner “accepts commissions from [the Hong Kong affiliate] on the basis of full investigation of the overseas market” and provides services. The services include performing marketing research to support the affiliate’s marketing strategies, assisting in the expansion of its customer base, supporting customer relations, assisting with after-sales services, facilitating import customs clearance for foreign-manufactured products, arranging storage and logistics issues in the United States, and assisting in the collection of payments. For these services, the Hong Kong affiliate pays a service fee (“payment quota multiplied by 3.5%”) and compensates the petitioner for labor and other expenses (rent, mailing fees, and travel). The petitioner submitted copies of monthly service fee invoices issued to its Hong Kong affiliate in amounts ranging from approximately $300,000 to $590,000, along with evidence of payments received. The petitioner also provided extensive evidence of its correspondence with customers and other evidence of its performance of the services outlined in the service agreement. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted copies of commercial sales invoices

II. 事实背景 申请人是受益人前香港雇主的关联公司，两者均由申请人的中国母公司拥有。申请人于2008年在纽约成立，进口母公司产品并向美国客户销售，主要是大型服装零售商。申请人直接开展这些销售活动直至2011年。然而，自2012年1月左右起，其依据与香港关联公司的服务协议在美国提供营销、销售和运输服务。 申请人提交了与其关联公司的服务协议，该协议表明申请人“在对海外市场进行全面调查的基础上接受[香港关联公司]的佣金”并提供服务。服务包括进行市场调研以支持关联公司的营销策略、协助扩大其客户群、支持客户关系、协助售后服务、促进外国制造产品的进口清关、安排美国的仓储和物流事宜，以及协助收取款项。 对于这些服务，香港关联公司支付服务费（“付款配额乘以3.5%”）并就人工和其他费用（租金、邮寄费和差旅费）补偿申请人。申请人提交了向香港关联公司开具的月度服务费发票副本，金额约为$300,000至$590,000，以及收到付款的证据。申请人还提供了其与客户通信的大量证据及其履行服务协议所列服务的其他证据。此外，申请人提交了商业销售发票副本

533

533

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015) Interim Decision #3830

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015) 临时决定 #3830

issued by the Hong Kong affiliate to United States customers and copies of bills of lading as evidence of the import and sales activities. Finally, the record establishes that the petitioner maintains service contracts with several shipping carriers to fulfill its obligations under the service agreement. The Director concluded that the petitioner was not doing business as required by the regulations, reasoning that the petitioner’s evidence “do[es] not indicate ‘doing business’ with independent corporations or entities” for a full year preceding the filing of the petition, but rather “only demonstrate[s] the shipment of goods from the foreign company to the U.S. company.” Specifically, the Director found that the petitioner, as a clothing importer, should have provided invoices or evidence of payment of invoices from the customers who purchased the clothing for the year preceding the filing of the petition. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the Director erred and that existing case law and regulatory history support a conclusion that the petitioner is doing business in a regular, systematic, and continuous fashion despite the fact that it is not a named party to contracts with buyers in the United States. The petitioner states that the evidence establishes it acts as an intermediary between its Hong Kong affiliate and the United States buyers and suppliers by locating customers and finalizing the details of sales contracts for the benefit of the affiliate. In a letter submitted on appeal, the petitioner further explains that while its affiliate is named on customer contracts, the record shows the petitioner “continues to secure these sales contracts by marketing, designing, corresponding and finalizing the terms of every U.S. sales contract” and by receiving all shipments of imported goods at its New York location. The petitioner contends that the regulatory definition of “doing business” does not require that it be a direct party to contracts or a direct provider of goods and services to a United States customer.

由香港关联公司向美国客户开具的发票副本以及提单副本，作为进口和销售活动的证据。最后，记录证明申请人与多家航运承运人保持服务合同，以履行其在服务协议下的义务。 主任认定申请人未按法规要求经营业务，理由是申请人的证据“并未表明在申请提交前整整一年内与独立公司或实体‘doing business’（经营业务）”，而“仅证明货物从外国公司运至美国公司”。具体而言，主任认定，作为服装进口商的申请人本应提供在申请提交前一年内购买服装的客户的发票或发票付款证据。 在上诉中，申请人主张主任有误，且现有判例法和法规历史支持如下结论：尽管申请人并非与美国买方合同的具名当事方，但其正以常规、系统和持续的方式经营业务。申请人称，证据证明其作为香港关联公司与美国买方和供应商之间的中介，为关联公司的利益寻找客户并最终确定销售合同细节。在上诉中提交的一封信中，申请人进一步解释，虽然其关联公司在客户合同上具名，但记录显示申请人“通过营销、设计、通信并最终确定每份美国销售合同的条款”以及在其纽约地点接收所有进口货物，从而“继续确保这些销售合同”。申请人主张，“doing business”（经营业务）的法规定义并不要求其成为合同的直接当事方或美国客户的商品和服务直接提供者。

III. ANALYSIS The Director’s finding that the petitioner did not submit evidence of doing business with “independent corporations or entities” implies a requirement that a petitioner must transact directly with an unaffiliated third party. However, the definition of “doing business” at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) contains no requirement that a petitioner for a multinational manager or executive must provide goods or services to an unaffiliated third party. Neither the plain language nor the regulatory history of the “doing business” provision supports such a requirement.

III. 分析 主任认定申请人未提交与“独立公司或实体”经营业务的证据，这暗示了一项要求，即申请人必须与无关联第三方直接交易。然而，8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) 中“doing business”（经营业务）的定义不包含任何要求，即跨国公司经理或高管的申请人必须向无关联第三方提供商品或服务。“doing business”（经营业务）条款的平实语言和法规历史均不支持此类要求。

534

534

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015) Interim Decision #3830

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015) 临时决定 #3830

The regulatory definitions of “doing business” applicable to immigrant multinational manager and executive petitions and to nonimmigrant intracompany transferee petitions are nearly identical. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) (immigrant multinational executives and managers), with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(H) (2014) (L-1 nonimmigrant intracompany transferees). The former Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) proposed the current definition of “doing business” in the nonimmigrant L-1 context in a 1986 proposed rule. See Documentary Requirements for Nonimmigrants; Waivers, Admission of Certain Inadmissible Aliens, Parole, 51 Fed. Reg. 18,591, 18,596 (May 21, 1986) (Supplementary Information) (“‘Doing business’ means the regular, systematic and continuous provision of goods and/or services by a qualifying organization and shall not include the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifying organization in the United States or abroad.”). Responding to public commenters’ concern that the proposed definition might disqualify liaison office arrangements from L-1 classification, the INS explained in the preamble to its final rule that “[t]he Service recognizes that company representatives and liaison offices provide services in the United States, even if the services are to a company outside the United States. Such services are included in the doing business definition . . . .” Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 52 Fed. Reg. 5738, 5741 (Feb. 26, 1987) (Supplementary Information). 2 In its 1991 final rule promulgating the current “doing business” definition in the immigrant context at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2), the INS indicated, “This requirement is similar to one pertaining to intra-company transferees under the L-1 nonimmigrant classification.” Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 60,897, 60,899 (Nov. 29, 1991) (Supplementary Information). As such, we interpret the two “doing business” provisions similarly and decline to read a third party or nonaffiliation requirement into these regulations. Accordingly, a petitioner may establish that it is “doing business” by demonstrating that it is providing goods and/or services in a regular, systematic, and continuous manner to related companies within its multinational organization. To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden, we consider the totality of the record, including relevant documentation to substantiate the petitioner’s business activities. The fact that a petitioner serves as an agent, representative, or liaison between a

适用于移民跨国公司经理和高管申请以及非移民公司内部调任人员申请的“doing business”（经营业务）法规定义几乎相同。比较 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2)（移民跨国公司高管和经理）与 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(H) (2014)（L-1非移民公司内部调任人员）。前移民和归化局（“INS”）在1986年拟议规则中于非移民L-1背景下提出了当前的“doing business”（经营业务）定义。见 Documentary Requirements for Nonimmigrants; Waivers, Admission of Certain Inadmissible Aliens, Parole, 51 Fed. Reg. 18,591, 18,596 (May 21, 1986) (Supplementary Information)（“‘Doing business’（经营业务）指合格组织常规、系统和持续地提供商品和/或服务，且不应包括仅存在合格组织在美国或国外的代理人或办公室。”）。 针对公众评论者担心拟议定义可能使联络处安排不符合L-1分类资格，INS在其最终规则的序言中解释：“[t]该局认识到公司代表和联络处在美国提供服务，即使服务对象是美国境外的公司。此类服务包含在doing business（经营业务）定义中……。” Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 52 Fed. Reg. 5738, 5741 (Feb. 26, 1987) (Supplementary Information)。2 在其1991年最终规则中颁布移民背景下当前的“doing business”（经营业务）定义（8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2)）时，INS表示：“[t]该要求类似于L-1非移民分类下适用于公司内部调任人员的要求。” Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 60,897, 60,899 (Nov. 29, 1991) (Supplementary Information)。因此，我们对两项“doing business”（经营业务）条款作类似解释，并拒绝在这些法规中读入第三方或非关联要求。 因此，申请人可以通过证明其以常规、系统和持续的方式向其跨国组织内的关联公司提供商品和/或服务，来确立其正在“doing business”（经营业务）。为确定申请人是否履行其举证责任，我们考虑记录的整体情况，包括证实申请人商业活动的相关文件。申请人作为代理人、代表或联络处介于

2 The language of the proposed rule differed slightly from the final rule. Compare 51 Fed. Reg. at 18,596, with 52 Fed. Reg. at 5752. No explanation was provided for this difference. This change in language does not impact the outcome of this case.

2 拟议规则的语言与最终规则略有不同。比较51 Fed. Reg. at 18,596与52 Fed. Reg. at 5752。对于这一差异未提供任何解释。这一语言变化不影响本案的结果。

535

535

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015) Interim Decision #3830

引用为26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015) 临时决定#3830

related foreign entity and its United States customers does not preclude a finding that it is doing business as defined in the regulations. Here, the petitioner established that it provides services to its foreign affiliate by marketing the foreign entity’s products, locating buyers, maintaining relationships with customers, and facilitating the completion of sales contracts and shipping arrangements in the United States. It provided a copy of its service agreement with the foreign affiliate and substantial evidence that it is, in fact, performing the services specified in the contract on a regular, systematic, and continuous basis. In this regard, the evidence presented shows that the petitioner billed the foreign entity for over $4.1 million in service fees in 2012 and paid $2.5 million in wages to its employees in the United States. The petitioner has established that it is doing business based on its regular, systematic, and continuous provision of services in the United States, and it has demonstrated that its operation does not constitute the “mere presence” of an agent or office. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). Accordingly, the Director’s decision will be withdrawn.

关联外国实体及其美国客户并不排除认定其正在从事法规所定义的经营业务。 在此，申请人已证明其通过在美国营销该外国实体的产品、寻找买家、维护与客户的关系以及促成销售合同和运输安排的完成，向该外国关联方提供服务。其提供了与外国关联方服务协议的副本，以及大量证据证明其事实上正在定期、系统且持续地履行合同所规定的服务。在这方面，所提交的证据显示，申请人于2012年向该外国实体开具了超过$4.1 million的服务费账单，并向其在美国的员工支付了$2.5 million的工资。 申请人已证明其基于在美国定期、系统且持续地提供服务而正在从事经营业务，并且其已证明其运营不构成代理人或办公室的“仅仅存在”。8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2)。因此，主任的决定将被撤回。

IV. CONCLUSION In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner’s burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 (2012); Matter of Skirball Cultural Center, 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, the petitioner has sustained that burden. Accordingly, the Director’s decision is withdrawn. ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.

IV. 结论 在签证申请程序中，申请人负有证明其符合所寻求移民福利资格的举证责任。参见该法第291条，8 U.S.C. § 1361 (2012)；Matter of Skirball Cultural Center, 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012)。在此，申请人已履行该举证责任。因此，主任的决定被撤回。 命令：上诉获准，申请获批。

536

536