This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish that the U.S. company had been doing business for at least one year before filing, and also failed to show that the beneficiary's foreign employer continued to do business abroad.
BTC-M-, LLC, a U.S. investment banking firm, filed an I-140 petition to permanently employ its CEO as a multinational executive. The Texas Service Center denied the petition on two grounds: (1) failure to establish the U.S. company had been doing business for at least one year before filing, and (2) failure to show the beneficiary's foreign employer continued to operate. On appeal, the AAO found that while providing services to affiliated foreign entities can qualify as 'doing business,' the petitioner's evidence—consisting only of a Cost Plus Agreement, invoices, and wire transfers—was insufficient without corroborating documentation of actual services performed. Additionally, the petitioner's 2012 tax return showed zero income, contradicting the claimed retroactive start date of the Cost Plus Agreement. The AAO dismissed the appeal on both grounds independently.
What failed: The petitioner submitted only a Cost Plus Agreement, invoices, and wire transfers without any documentation showing actual services were performed, unlike the petitioner in Matter of Leacheng who provided extensive corroborating evidence. The 2012 corporate tax return showing zero income contradicted the claim that the Cost Plus Agreement was operative from July 2012, leaving a gap in the required one-year doing-business period. For the foreign entity, the petitioner provided only payroll, rent, insurance, and utility records without any evidence of actual business transactions such as receipts, invoices for services, or contracts with clients.
Takeaway: For EB-1C petitions, a Cost Plus or intercompany service agreement alone is not enough—petitioners must also document the actual services performed, such as correspondence with clients, sales invoices, contracts, or other operational records. Ensure the company's tax returns and financial statements are consistent with the claimed start date of business operations.
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
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner submitted only a Cost Plus Agreement, invoices, and wire transfers without any documentation showing actual services were performed, unlike the petitioner in Matter of Leacheng who provided extensive corroborating evidence
- The 2012 corporate tax return showing zero income contradicted the claim that the Cost Plus Agreement was operative from July 2012, leaving a gap in the required one-year doing-business period
- For the foreign entity, the petitioner provided only payroll, rent, insurance, and utility records without any evidence of actual business transactions such as receipts, invoices for services, or contracts with clients.
Cost Plus Agreement with foreign affiliate, along with invoices and wire transfer payments, were conceptually accepted as a valid theory of 'doing business' under Matter of Leacheng, but were insufficient alone without corroborating operational evidence
2012 IRS Form 1120 showing $0 in assets and $0 in income, undercutting retroactive effective date of Cost Plus Agreement
Invoices and wire transfers without accompanying documentation of actual services rendered
Payroll summaries, rent payments, health insurance, and utility bills as insufficient to establish 'doing business' without evidence of actual business transactions
Forecasted financial statements for the U.S. entity instead of actual income documentation
Foreign entity documentation limited to payroll, rent, insurance, and utilities without evidence of actual trade or service transactions
No legal errors in the Director's decision were found; the AAO upheld both grounds for denial
Completed
I-140 filed
Chief Executive Officer / Head of Global Markets at an investment banking firm
Completed
Texas Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2016-05-03
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish that the U.S. company had been doing business for at least one year before filing, and also failed to show that the beneficiary's foreign employer continued to do business abroad.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee