Matter of F-M- Co.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of the Director (MS 2000) Washington, DC 20529-2000

美国公民及移民服务局 局长办公室 (MS 2000) 华盛顿特区 20529-2000

SUBJECT: Matter of F-M- Co., Adopted Decision 2020-01 (AAO May 5, 2020) Purpose This policy memorandum (PM) designates the attached decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in Matter of F-M- Co. as an Adopted Decision. Accordingly, this adopted decision establishes policy guidance that applies and shall be used to guide determinations by all U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) employees. USCIS personnel are directed to follow the reasoning in this decision in similar cases. Matter of F-M- Co. clarifies that for first preference multinational executives or managers, a petitioner must have a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer at the time the petition is filed and must maintain that relationship until the petition is adjudicated. Matter of F-M- Co. also clarifies that in the event a corporate restructuring affecting the foreign entity occurs prior to the filing of the petition, a petitioner may establish that the beneficiary’s qualifying foreign employer continues to exist and do business through a valid successor entity. Use This PM is intended solely for the guidance of USCIS personnel in the performance of their official duties. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner. Contact Information Questions or suggestions regarding this PM should be addressed through appropriate directorate channels to the AAO.

主题：Matter of F-M- Co.，采纳决定 2020-01 (AAO 2020年5月5日) 目的 本政策备忘录 (PM) 将行政上诉办公室 (AAO) 在 Matter of F-M- Co. 案中附上的决定指定为采纳决定。因此，本采纳决定确立了政策指导，适用于并应被用于指导所有美国公民及移民服务局 (USCIS) 员工的裁定。USCIS 人员被指示在类似案件中遵循本决定的推理。 Matter of F-M- Co. 澄清，对于第一优先跨国高管或经理，申请人必须在提交申请时与受益人的外国雇主存在合格关系，并且必须维持该关系直至申请被裁定。Matter of F-M- Co. 还澄清，如果在提交申请之前发生影响外国实体的公司重组，申请人可以通过有效的继承实体证明受益人的合格外国雇主继续存在并开展业务。 使用 本PM仅旨在为USCIS人员履行公务提供指导。它不旨在、也不得被依赖以创设任何权利或利益，无论是实体性的还是程序性的，可在法律上或由任何个人或其他方在驱逐程序中、在与美国的诉讼中、或以任何其他形式或方式强制执行。 联系信息 有关本PM的问题或建议应通过适当的局渠道向AAO提出。

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office Washington, DC 20529

美国公民及移民服务局 行政上诉办公室 华盛顿特区 20529

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

国土安全部

May 5, 2020 1

2020年5月5日 1

(1) For first preference multinational executives or managers, a petitioner must have a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer at the time the petition is filed and must maintain that relationship until the petition is adjudicated. (2) In the event a corporate restructuring affecting the foreign entity occurs prior to the filing of the petition, a petitioner may establish that the beneficiary’s qualifying foreign employer continues to exist and do business through a valid successor entity. FOR THE PETITIONER: Kyle Sherman, Esquire, Atlanta, Georgia The Petitioner, an automobile manufacturer, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its “steering component technical expert” under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives and managers. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C). 2 The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that because the Beneficiary’s last employer abroad had ceased to exist, it was

(1) 对于第一优先跨国高管或经理，申请人必须在提交申请时与受益人的外国雇主存在合格关系，并且必须维持该关系直至申请被裁定。 (2) 如果在提交申请之前发生影响外国实体的公司重组，申请人可以通过有效的继承实体证明受益人的合格外国雇主继续存在并开展业务。 申请人代表：Kyle Sherman, Esquire, 佐治亚州亚特兰大 申请人是一家汽车制造商，寻求根据跨国高管和经理的第一优先移民分类，永久雇用受益人作为其“转向部件技术专家”。移民和国籍法（该法）第203(b)(1)(C)条，8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C)。2 内布拉斯加服务中心主任拒绝了该申请，结论是，由于受益人在国外的最后雇主已不复存在，它

1 On February 27, 2020, we issued this decision as a non-precedent decision. We have reopened this decision on our own motion under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5)(i) for the purpose of making revisions in preparation for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) designating it as an Adopted Decision. 2 In this role, the Beneficiary will oversee the technical development of the Petitioner’s Autonomous Vehicle Motion Control technology. The Petitioner demonstrated that the offered position will be in a managerial capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A).

1 2020年2月27日，我们作为非先例决定发布了本决定。我们根据8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5)(i)自行重新开放本决定，目的是进行修订，以备美国公民及移民服务局 (USCIS) 将其指定为采纳决定。 2 在此职位上，受益人将监督申请人自动驾驶车辆运动控制技术的技术开发。申请人证明所提供的职位将属于该法第101(a)(44)(A)条，8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A)所定义的管理性质。

Matter of F-M- Co. Adopted Decision

Matter of F-M- Co. 采纳决定

no longer doing business as defined in the regulations, and no longer had a qualifying relationship with the Petitioner. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director erred in (1) determining that the Beneficiary’s employer abroad must continue its existence as a “separate and distinct legal entity” and (2) rejecting evidence that the Beneficiary’s employer abroad continues to exist and do business through a successor-in-interest. The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo’s Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal.

不再符合法规所定义的开展业务，并且不再与申请人存在合格关系。 申请人在上诉中主张，主任在以下方面错误：(1) 裁定受益人的国外雇主必须作为“独立且不同的法律实体”继续存在，以及 (2) 拒绝受益人国外雇主通过利益继承人继续存在并开展业务的证据。 申请人承担举证责任，以优势证据证明资格。该法第291条；Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010)。行政上诉办公室 (AAO) 对本案中的问题进行重新审查。Matter of Christo’s Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015)。经重新审查，我们将维持上诉。

I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK This matter presents two related issues: (1) whether a petitioner must establish at the time of filing the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the legal entity that employed the beneficiary abroad; and (2) if so, whether a petitioner can establish this ongoing qualifying relationship by demonstrating that the employer abroad continues to exist and do business through a successor entity. To establish a “qualifying relationship,” the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary’s foreign employer and the proposed United States employer are the same employer (a domestic entity with a foreign office) or related as a “parent and subsidiary” or as “affiliates.” Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) (providing definitions of the terms “affiliate” and “subsidiary”). We must examine “ownership and control” to determine the precise nature of the relationship between the United States employer and the foreign entity. See Matter of Church Scientology Int’l, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm’r 1988).

一、法律框架 本事项提出两个相关问题：(1) 申请人是否必须在提交I-140表格（外籍工人移民申请）时证明其与在国外雇用受益人的法律实体维持合格关系；以及 (2) 如果是，申请人是否可以通过证明国外雇主通过继承实体继续存在并开展业务来证明这种持续的合格关系。 为建立“合格关系”，申请人必须证明受益人的外国雇主和拟议的美国雇主是同一雇主（拥有外国办事处的国内实体），或作为“母子公司”或“关联公司”相关。该法第203(b)(1)(C)条；8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2)（提供“关联公司”和“子公司”术语的定义）。我们必须审查“所有权和控制权”以确定美国雇主与外国实体之间关系的准确性质。见 Matter of Church Scientology Int’l, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm’r 1988)。

II. BACKGROUND Prior to his transfer to the United States to work for the Petitioner as a nonimmigrant, the Beneficiary worked for a German company, herein referred to as “FFA,” for a period of 14 years. In October 2011, at the time of his transfer to the United States, the sole shareholder and parent company of FFA was “FW,” a German subsidiary of the petitioning company. In January 2015, the authorized representatives of these two German entities agreed to a merger by absorption in which FW acquired all of FFA’s assets, rights, and obligations as the surviving entity. The merger agreement stipulates that the rights of FFA’s employees transferred to FW, the operation of FFA by FW would continue, and the merger would not “affect the identity of the operation of [FFA].” The Petitioner filed the current immigrant visa petition in December 2016, following the merger of the two related entities.

二、背景 在受益人作为非移民转移到美国为申请人工作之前，受益人为一家德国公司（本文称为“FFA”）工作了14年。2011年10月，在他转移到美国时，FFA的唯一股东和母公司是“FW”，一家申请公司的德国子公司。 2015年1月，这两家德国实体的授权代表同意以吸收合并方式合并，其中FW作为存续实体收购了FFA的所有资产、权利和义务。合并协议规定，FFA员工的权利转移给FW，FW对FFA的运营将继续，合并不会“影响[FFA]运营的同一性”。申请人在两个相关实体合并后的2016年12月提交了当前的移民签证申请。

2

2

Matter of F-M- Co. Adopted Decision

Matter of F-M- Co. 采纳决定

III. ANALYSIS A. Qualifying Relationship at the Time of Filing The Director properly concluded that a petitioner must demonstrate a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s last employer abroad as of the date it files the immigrant petition. As a long-standing tenet of immigration law, the petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm’r 1971). A multinational executive or manager is one who “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.” Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act (emphasis added). Accordingly, the petitioner must provide evidence that the prospective U.S. employer “is the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity” which employed the beneficiary abroad. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C). Therefore, it follows that the relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary’s foreign employer must exist both in the present and at the time of filing. The principal focus of both the statute and the regulations is the continuity of the beneficiary’s employment with the same multinational organization. See section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A) and (B). This interpretation is consistent with the purpose in creating this classification as a means of permanently transferring key managers and executives within a multinational organization. 3 A beneficiary cannot be transferred to the United States as a multinational executive or manager from a company that is no longer in the same multinational organization, whether that is because the former employer no longer exists in any form, or because it no longer shares the requisite common ownership and control with the petitioning U.S. employer. 4 Cf. 52 Fed. Reg. 5738, 5741 (Feb. 26, 1987) (“requiring that the organization continue to do business in the U.S. and abroad” and overruling by regulation Matter of Thompson, 18 I&N Dec. 169 (Comm’r 1981)). Further, the regulations require that a petitioner maintain its qualifying relationship from the time of filing and through the adjudication of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). B. Applying Successor-in-Interest Principles to the Qualifying Relationship Question On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that FW is the successor-in-interest to FFA, the entity that employed the Beneficiary in Germany. As such, the Petitioner asserts that FW should be treated as the same entity that employed the Beneficiary for purposes of establishing an ongoing qualifying relationship. The Petitioner emphasized that a 2009 USCIS memorandum provided a definition for

三、分析 A. 提交时的合格关系 主任正确得出结论，申请人必须在提交移民申请之日证明与受益人的最后国外雇主存在合格关系。作为移民法的长期原则，申请人必须证明移民福利的所有资格要求从提交时起并持续至裁定期间均已满足。8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1)；另见 Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm’r 1971)。 跨国高管或经理是指“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管理或行政服务的人”。该法第203(b)(1)(C)条（强调添加）。因此，申请人必须提供证据证明预期美国雇主“是同一雇主，或是雇用受益人在国外的公司、企业或其他法律实体的子公司或关联公司”。8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C)。因此，申请人与受益人的外国雇主之间的关系必须既存在于现在，也存在于提交时。 法规和条例的主要焦点是受益人在同一跨国组织中就业的连续性。见该法第203(b)(1)(C)条；8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A)和(B)。这一解释与创建此分类作为在跨国组织内永久转移关键管理人员和高管的手段的目的相一致。3 受益人不能从不再属于同一跨国组织的公司作为跨国高管或经理转移到美国，无论是因为前雇主不再以任何形式存在，还是因为它不再与申请美国雇主共享所需的共同所有权和控制权。4 参见 52 Fed. Reg. 5738, 5741 (1987年2月26日)（“要求组织继续在美国和国外开展业务”并通过法规推翻 Matter of Thompson, 18 I&N Dec. 169 (Comm’r 1981)）。 此外，法规要求申请人从提交时起直至申请裁定期间维持其合格关系。见8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1)。 B. 将利益继承人原则应用于合格关系问题 在上诉中，申请人主张FW是FFA的利益继承人，FFA是在德国雇用受益人的实体。因此，申请人声称，为建立持续的合格关系，FW应被视为雇用受益人的同一实体。申请人强调，2009年USCIS备忘录提供了定义

3 Congress noted “the need of multinational business to transfer key personnel around the world as nonimmigrants is paralleled in this category to allow a basis upon which these individuals may immigrate.” See H.R. REP. NO. 101-723 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6739, 1990 WL 200418. 4 Disqualifying changes in a qualifying relationship may include instances where the entity that employed the beneficiary abroad dissolves and ceases operations entirely or where the foreign employer is sold to a company that is not in the same multinational organization.

3 国会指出，“跨国企业作为非移民在世界各地转移关键人员的需要，在这一类别中同样存在，以提供这些个人可以移民的基础。”见 H.R. REP. NO. 101-723 (1990)，重印于1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6739, 1990 WL 200418。 4 合格关系中的不合格变化可能包括在国外雇用受益人的实体解散并完全停止运营的情况，或外国雇主被出售给不属于同一跨国组织的公司的情况。

3

3

Matter of F-M- Co. Adopted Decision

Matter of F-M- Co. 采纳决定

“successor-in-interest” and was intended to provide flexibility for legitimate successor-in-interest scenarios in the Form I-140 context. Memorandum from Donald Neufeld, Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations, USCIS, HQ 70/6.2, Successor-in-Interest Determinations in Adjudication of Form I-140 Petitions; Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) Update to Chapter 22.2(b)(5) (AD09-37) (Aug. 6, 2009), http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda (Neufeld Memorandum). The Director rejected the Petitioner’s successor-in-interest claim, observing that the Neufeld Memorandum states that the successor-in-interest analysis is “not applicable to I-140 visa preference categories that do not require labor certification.” Id. at 10. Accordingly, the Director declined to consider corporate successorship principles and determined that the qualifying entity abroad must continue to exist and do business in the same legal form as it did when it employed the Beneficiary. Upon review, we conclude that the Director’s decision applied an overly strict reading of the applicable statute, regulations, and USCIS policy when it required that the qualifying entity abroad must exist in the exact same legal form. As noted, Congress created this immigrant classification to facilitate the transfer of managerial and executive employees within the same multinational organization. 5 It is commonplace for large organizations to undergo reorganization and as a result, associated entities may be merged, consolidated, or dissolved. If those changes occur after a beneficiary has been transferred to the United States in L-1A classification and prior to filing an immigrant petition for a multinational manager or executive, as in the current case, it is the petitioner’s burden to fully disclose and document those corporate changes in support of its claim of a continuing qualifying relationship with the employer abroad, and to provide current evidence of the foreign employer’s ownership and control. 6 Here, the Petitioner has disclosed and documented the merger of the Beneficiary’s foreign employer into its parent company. We see no barrier to conducting a successor-in-interest analysis in the immigrant visa context to determine whether a beneficiary’s foreign employer continues to exist through a successor company within the same multinational organization. Additionally, we disagree with the decision’s complete rejection of the 2009 Neufeld Memorandum’s guidance in this context. It is true that the memorandum was issued to address successor-in-interest determinations in cases where a U.S. employer is claiming to be a successor-in-interest to the U.S. employer that filed a labor certification-based Form I-140, and that no certified labor certification is required in support of a multinational manager or executive petition. However, the memorandum provides useful guidance on agency accepted definitions of “successor” and “successor-in-interest” and does not prohibit USCIS from considering successor-in-interest claims in other contexts.

“利益承继者”，旨在为I-140表格情形下合法的利益承继者情形提供灵活性。Donald Neufeld备忘录，USCIS国内业务代理副主任，HQ 70/6.2，《I-140表格申请裁决中的利益承继者认定；裁决者现场手册（AFM）第22.2(b)(5)章更新》（AD09-37）（2009年8月6日），http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda（Neufeld备忘录）。 主任驳回了申请人的利益承继者主张，指出Neufeld备忘录规定利益承继者分析“不适用于不要求劳工证的I-140签证优先类别”。Id. at 10。因此，主任拒绝考虑公司承继原则，并认定境外的合格实体必须以其雇用受益人时相同的法律形式继续存在并经营业务。 经审查，我们认为主任的决定在要求境外合格实体必须以完全相同的法律形式存在时，对适用法规、条例和USCIS政策作了过于严格的解读。 如前所述，国会设立这一移民类别是为了便利同一跨国组织内部管理人员和高管人员的调动。5 大型组织进行重组是司空见惯的，因此，关联实体可能被合并、整合或解散。如果这些变更发生在受益人已以L-1A身份调往美国之后、且在提交跨国管理人员或高管移民申请之前，如本案情形，则申请人有责任充分披露并记录这些公司变更，以支持其与境外雇主持续存在合格关系的主张，并提供境外雇主所有权和控制权的当前证据。6 在此，申请人已披露并记录了受益人的境外雇主并入其母公司的合并情况。我们认为在移民签证情形下进行利益承继者分析以确定受益人的境外雇主是否通过同一跨国组织内的承继公司继续存在，并无障碍。 此外，我们不同意该决定在此情形下完全拒绝2009年Neufeld备忘录的指导。诚然，该备忘录的发布是为了处理美国雇主主张作为提交了基于劳工证的I-140表格的美国雇主的利益承继者的案件中的利益承继者认定，且跨国管理人员或高管申请无需提供经认证的劳工证支持。然而，该备忘录就机构认可的“承继者”和“利益承继者”定义提供了有用的指导，且并未禁止USCIS在其他情形下考虑利益承继者主张。

5 In promulgating the regulations on 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service commented that “this regulation reflects the statute and follows criteria long in place for the adjudication of petitions for [L-1] nonimmigrant intra-company transferees . . . .” 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (July 5, 1991). Therefore, Congress and the agency recognized the clear parallels between the immigrant and nonimmigrant classifications. 6 A petitioner cannot rely on the prior L-1 approval as evidence of a qualifying relationship for purposes of a subsequent immigrant visa petition. The regulations recognize that the Beneficiary may already be working for the Petitioner or a related U.S. entity but still require a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B).

5 在制定《移民与国籍法》第203(b)(1)(C)条的条例时，前移民与归化局评论称“该条例反映了法规，并遵循了长期以来用于裁决[L-1]非移民公司内部调动人员申请的标准……”。56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705（1991年7月5日）。因此，国会和该机构认可了移民类别与非移民类别之间明显的相似之处。 6 申请人不能依赖先前的L-1批准作为后续移民签证申请中合格关系的证据。条例认可受益人可能已为申请人或关联美国实体工作，但仍要求在提交时与境外雇主存在合格关系。See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B)。

4

4

Matter of F-M- Co. Adopted Decision

Matter of F-M- Co. 已采纳决定

The Neufeld Memorandum, which recognized changes in business practices in the areas of acquisitions and mergers, was issued “to allow flexibility for the adjudication of I-140 petitions that present novel yet substantiated and legitimate successor in interest scenarios.” Id. at 2. Like prior agency guidance on the issue of successor-in-interest eligibility requirements, it cited to Matter of Dial Auto Repair Shop, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 481 (Comm’r 1986). In Matter of Dial Auto, the Commissioner found that the petitioner did not adequately support its claim that it had assumed all of the predecessor company’s rights, duties, and obligations in order to establish eligibility as a successor-in-interest. The Neufeld Memorandum noted that Matter of Dial Auto had been interpreted too strictly and “did not state that a valid successor relationship could only be established through the assumption of all of a predecessor entity’s rights, duties, and obligations.” Supra at 3. The memo turned to Black’s Law Dictionary for definitions of “successor” and “successor-in-interest” and stressed the successor entity’s burden to fully describe and document the nature of the transfer of rights, obligations, and ownership of the prior entity. “Successor-in-interest” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “one who follows another in the ownership or control of property” and “retains the same rights as the original owner, with no change in substance.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1570 (9th ed. 2009). A “successor” is defined as “a corporation that, through amalgamation, consolidation or other assumption of interests is vested with the rights and duties of an earlier corporation.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1569 (9th ed. 2009). In the event a corporate restructuring affecting the foreign entity occurs prior to the filing of a first preference multinational executive or manager petition, a petitioner may establish that the beneficiary’s qualifying foreign employer continues to exist and do business through a valid successor entity. If these conditions are met, USCIS will consider the successor-in-interest to be the same entity that employed the beneficiary abroad. Here, the corporate restructuring occurred prior to the filing of the immigrant petition. The Petitioner has also established that the German entity that employed the Beneficiary was acquired through a well- documented merger by its parent company, FW, and FW, the successor-in-interest, owns and controls the original foreign employer’s property, has assumed its rights and duties, and carries on the same business with no change in substance. Further, the record demonstrates that the successor-in-interest is a subsidiary of the petitioning company and therefore part of the same multinational organization. Based on these facts, and for purposes of this petition, we consider the successor-in-interest, FW, to be the same entity that employed the Beneficiary in Germany. Accordingly, the Petitioner has established that it has a qualifying relationship with the entity that employed the Beneficiary abroad. ORDER: The appeal is sustained. Cite as Matter of F-M- Co., Adopted Decision 2020-01 (AAO May 5, 2020)

Neufeld备忘录认可了收购和合并领域商业实践的变化，其发布是“为了在裁决呈现新颖但有充分证据支持的合法利益承继者情形的I-140申请时提供灵活性”。Id. at 2。与先前关于利益承继者资格要求的机构指导一样，它引用了Matter of Dial Auto Repair Shop, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 481（Comm’r 1986）。在Matter of Dial Auto中，主任认定申请人未能充分支持其已承继前公司全部权利、义务和责任以确立利益承继者资格的主张。Neufeld备忘录指出，Matter of Dial Auto曾被过于严格地解读，且“并未规定有效的承继关系只能通过承继前实体的全部权利、义务和责任来确立”。Supra at 3。该备忘录转向《布莱克法律词典》寻求“承继者”和“利益承继者”的定义，并强调承继实体有责任充分描述和记录前实体的权利、义务和所有权转移的性质。 《布莱克法律词典》将“利益承继者”定义为“在财产所有权或控制权上承继他人的人”且“保留与原所有人相同的权利，实质内容无变化”。《布莱克法律词典》1570（第9版2009年）。 “承继者”被定义为“通过合并、整合或其他利益承继而获得先前公司权利和义务的公司”。《布莱克法律词典》1569（第9版2009年）。 如果影响境外实体的公司重组发生在提交第一优先跨国高管或管理人员申请之前，申请人可以证明受益人的合格境外雇主通过有效的承继实体继续存在并经营业务。如果满足这些条件，USCIS将视利益承继者为在境外雇用受益人的同一实体。 在此，公司重组发生在提交移民申请之前。申请人也已证明，雇用受益人的德国实体通过其母公司FW经充分记录的合并而被收购，且FW作为利益承继者拥有并控制原境外雇主的财产，已承继其权利和义务，并以无实质变化的方式继续经营相同业务。此外，记录表明利益承继者是申请公司的子公司，因此属于同一跨国组织的一部分。基于这些事实，并为本次申请之目的，我们视利益承继者FW为在德国雇用受益人的同一实体。因此，申请人已证明其与在境外雇用受益人的实体存在合格关系。 命令： 上诉获准。 引用为Matter of F-M- Co., Adopted Decision 2020-01（AAO 2020年5月5日）

5

5