This appeal was fully successful
The AAO reversed the Director's denial, finding the petitioner established a qualifying affiliate relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer in Canada. The Director had applied the incorrect definition of 'affiliates' under the regulations.
A multinational consulting and professional services company petitioned to permanently transfer a manager from its Canadian affiliate to the United States under the EB-1C classification. The Director denied the petition, finding the petitioner failed to establish a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer at the time of filing. On appeal, the AAO found the Director had applied the incorrect definition of 'affiliates,' overlooking a regulatory provision specifically applicable to accounting firms that share an internationally recognized name under a worldwide coordinating organization. The AAO found sufficient documentation that both entities met this special affiliate definition and sustained the appeal.
What worked: The petitioner successfully argued that the Director applied the wrong legal definition of 'affiliates.' Evidence showing both the U.S. and Canadian entities operated under the same internationally recognized name within a worldwide coordinating organization owned and controlled by member firms was decisive under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2)(C).
What failed: The Director's narrow interpretation of 'affiliates' failed to account for the special regulatory provision covering accounting and consulting firms that share a recognized brand name under a global coordinating structure, leading to an erroneous denial.
Takeaway: For EB-1C petitions involving large accounting or consulting networks, practitioners should specifically invoke the special affiliate definition at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2)(C) and provide clear documentation that both entities operate under the same internationally recognized name within a worldwide coordinating organization controlled by member firms.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1C criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The petitioner successfully argued that the Director applied the wrong legal definition of 'affiliates.' Evidence showing both the U.S
- and Canadian entities operated under the same internationally recognized name within a worldwide coordinating organization owned and controlled by member firms was decisive under 8 C.F.R
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The Director's narrow interpretation of 'affiliates' failed to account for the special regulatory provision covering accounting and consulting firms that share a recognized brand name under a global coordinating structure, leading to an erroneous denial.
Previously approved L-1A nonimmigrant blanket petition establishing qualifying relationship between the petitioner and foreign employer in 2019
Supporting documentation demonstrating that both the petitioner and the foreign employer in Canada provide accounting and consulting services under the same internationally recognized name under a worldwide coordinating organization owned and controlled by member firms
The Director's reliance on the 2019 L-1A blanket petition alone as insufficient to verify the qualifying relationship still existed at the time of filing in March 2023
The Director applied the incorrect definition of 'affiliates' under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2)(C), failing to account for the special accounting-firm affiliate definition covering firms providing accounting and consulting services under the same internationally recognized name under a worldwide coordinating organization owned and controlled by member firms.
Completed
I-140 filed
Manager at a multinational consulting and professional services company
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-08-26
AAO decision — Sustained
The AAO reversed the Director's denial, finding the petitioner established a qualifying affiliate relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer in Canada. The Director had applied the incorrect definition of 'affiliates' under the regulations.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee