Episode 32 - Review of Several New

EB-1c AAO Decisions


Click Here Listen and to Subscribe on Itunes

Click Here to Subscribe Via RSS Feed (Non-Itunes) 

Stream by clicking here

Download as an MP3 by right-clicking here and choosing “save as.”

Send your Feedback/Comments/Opinions to Info@jqklaw.com

Thank you for listening to this program. Please hit the thumbs up bottom below. For more immigration information and updates, follow and like us at Facebook.com/jqklawfirm, follow me on twitter @jqklawfirm and on Instagram @LosAngelesImmigrationLawyer, subscribe to this youtube channel and find more information on my website: JQKLaw.com

Show Notes

Review of several AAO Decisions regarding EB-1c Multinational Executive or Manager cases touching upon topics such as: Successors in Interest, Portability, Who is considered an "Employee", Functional Managers and Qualifying Relationships in Joint Ventures. Many of these same rules would apply in the L-1 Intracompany Transfer Context.

Successor-In-Interest & Portability in the EB-1c Context

Matter of N-Inc., ID# 129916 (AAO Jan. 13, 2017)

Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) 22.2(b)(5)(D)

Neufeld Memo For Aug. 6 2009

CFR updated affective Jan. 17, 2017, affecting EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers

Who is an Employee in the EB-1c/L-1 Context?

Matter of A- Inc., ID# 96181 (AAO Jan.12, 20 17)

Nationwide life. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322-323 (1992)

Functional Manager in the EB-1c/L-1 Context

Matter of G- Inc., ID# 96255 (AAO Feb. 17, 2017)

Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016): https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/D7%20-%20Intracompany%20Transferees%20(L-1A%20and%20L-1B)/Decisions_Issued_in_2013/SEP132013_01D7101.pdf

USCIS Adopted Decision of Matter of Z

My review of Matter of Z

Joint Ventures in EB-1c/L-1 Context

Matter ofUSAM-W-A-D-M-, Inc., ID# 102803 (AAO Feb. 28, 2017)

Matter of M-A-B-W-, Inc., ID# 97882 (AAO Feb. 14, 2017)

Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289

8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(K) Intracompany Transferees/Subsidiary

(K) Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity.

Synopsis of L-1 AAO Decision Cases



Hi, everyone. Welcome to this episode of the Immigration Lawyers' Podcast. I'm so excited to bring another episode which is different from the last two, not a weekly but something I try to do in the middle of the week which is discussing in detail, areas of law and analyzing cases. This one's going to be about the EB-1c multinational manager or executive green card. And I'm going to analyze four different AAO cases and talk about interesting points of law and analysis that are brought up that are kind of different from the typical AAO case that comes out. Note that I'm going to go very deep in the rules and it's going to be very technical, so it's really for business based practitioners or those interested in this area. Frankly, it might get boring if you're not into this stuff. But if you are you're trying to learn the area, it's some nuance stuff that can be very fun and interesting if you enjoy thinking about the stuff like I do. Without further ado let's get started.

Welcome to the Immigration Lawyers' Podcast. I am the host attorney John Khosravi and I practice US Immigration Law exclusively. For more information about the program please visit www.immigrationlawyerspodcast.com. Please note that this recording is informational only it does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a licensed attorney for specific legal guidance that suits your case. Also, this recording is copyrighted and written permission is required for re-broadcasting. For more information about me please visit www.jqklaw.com.

Hi, so I'm going to be talking about four different cases AAO cases that recently came out and the decision that AAO did. And there’s four cases of those four; three of them are great examples of bad counseling if you will. I'm not sure if attorneys did this or not. I'm sorry if you're hearing this and you were a part of this case but the decisions making to even filed these cases let alone the courage if you will, to even file an appeal on this case is tremendous when you could just read the rules and it's obvious. To me, it's really obvious but the AAO said it's a nuanced issue that they wanted, I'm sorry, the director US head director who made the decision said it's a nuanced issue that they want to take up to the AAO for them to decide. But it wasn't too nuanced for me and I don't think it should be for you as it’s not too difficult to note that the petitioner was wrong. But let's get started with the first case, this is matter of and end incorporated January 13, 2017. It's about a...has two parts to it that come up that usually don't come up with AAO case or EB-1c cases, but it's kind of cool to talk about because it goes into the perm related EB-2 EB-3 categories. The first part of this case matter of end is the successor in interest idea.

Here the petitioner was a producer of mobile devices and was going to petition for a visa petition an immigrant visa petition for senior manager.

Now the senior manager had come into this original petitioner to work for them, but a few weeks or few months and a lot of it is redacted so there’re trunks of it that are missing. But the idea comes out pretty clear. So the guest hired is working with the US petitioner...I think they're probably on L1 before...US petitioner files the EB-1c petition and adjustment of status at the same time. In about say like two months afterward the petitioner goes out of business sells all its assets to another company and it kind of looks like it was planned all the time to make the other company bigger from the pieces of the old one. And the petitioner here, in this case, was denied they didn't want to argue success or an interest to say the petition was kept alive because another company got all the assets so it was just a matter of transferring somewhere to like an EB-2 or 3 contexts. However, denial and subsequently in the AAO [appeal] language they cite the judicators field manual new fell memo which essentially says, I-140 in the perm process and labor certification, it's possible to have a successor an interest but it's not possible in the EB-1 content. In these types of cases, you must file a new petition the new company has to file a new petition and satisfy all the EB-2c requirements, there's no two ways around it. Now if this person was already working L1 and they transfer that new company they would have had to update their L1 as a new employer as well that's another thing we're not getting into. But that's something to know I mean I want to notify the USCIS of change in employer. 

So this was the easy answer, he could have denied the case right there just because there's no successor an interest. The petitioner failed or the beneficiary should have asked the petitioner the new company to petition for them instead of having the same file continue. They should have noticed this and avoided the time of filing, and then filing an appeal waste of time and money just got down to business from the very beginning. If they saw how they made this mistake even after they file, just withdrew it and date it again. There's no point to drag this down this far. 

Now the second part of this case the AAO closed the detail about the portability issues they try...the petitioner try to say there's 204G portability and that the case is pending or at least the sale of the company happen 186 days after the petition was filed so that the perm should...so that portability should have happened. The director notes that for portability you have to have a bonified intention to employ the person upon approval. The job offer is prospective even though they're already working here and I-140 job offers perspective for the green card. But in this case, the offer expires two months after the I-485 has filed before the 180 days, because the actual sale and transfer of the company happened before that time. Citing the new regs in the 2009 memo, the new regs being the January 17, 2017 regs that came to place. They talked about the petition has to be approved first before DHS exam it's portability. And here it's EB-1c, there is no premium processing so there is a long delay before it's approved. Citing the regulation 8 CFR section 245.25A2 roman numeral 2B2 it say in part "The pending petition will be approved if it was eligible for approval at the time of filing and until the alien's adjustment of status application has been pending for 180 days." As noted in the preamble this regulation re-affirms existing policy rather than sets forth a new policy that will not apply before January 17, 2017. 

The premium law also states, "Consistent with current policy and practice DHS will review the pending petition to determine whether the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the petition is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated before the associated application for adjustment of status had been pending for 180 days or more."

Under the above reasoning examining the validity of the job offer after the filing date but before the passage of 180 days is consistent with current policy and practice. Now they state that the final ruling in the preamble do not directly address the issue of the retraction or termination of the job offer. But they say that the preamble does indicate that "DHS...will deny a form I-140 petition if DHS receive the written withdraw request or a business termination occurs before the associate application for adjustment of status has been pending for 180 days.

In the instant case...again there's a lot of redactions here so it's kind of hard to get the timelines down...but it says "The instant case the original job offer no longer existed 180 days after the filing of the application. The beneficiary had transferred from the new company...and they didn't say exactly how many months it's redacted but it's after the petition filing date...at that time arrangement for the sale and the solution of the petitioner company were already on their way. The beneficiary transfer occurred for the very reason that everyone involved knew that the company would soon seize to exist as a result of its sale." So the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had a bonified intention to return to that work or that there was a bonified intention to rehire her to that original company. The original job offer describe the position seize to exist long before the critical 180 day mark even if the petitioner continue to exists on paper for a few days after the 180 days. So they go on to examining the actual sale and the details in the timelines. Furthermore, they talked about the executed purchase agreement was set to for the new company to buy substantial all of the devices and services of the business on the weeks before the petitioner had even filed this petition. Now on appeal, the petitioner say they may have been protracted negotiations that could have occurred that would have extended the life of the petitioner and the existence of the business pass the 180 days. So that [their] ultimate deal would have come to fruition because of these factors.

But the AAO says "In point of fact the deal did come to fruition." They say there's always the possibility that due to unforeseen circumstances the beneficiary would not end up working for the petition of US employer. USCIS doesn't deny petitions because of given job offer might hypothetically fall through. On the same basis, they do not find job offer remain valid even after the impending sale had been announced and the beneficiary had been transferred. Because all the parties had the intention and were involved with the sale and permanent transfer of the position so that the original petitionary company wouldn't exist anymore. This disqualifying change of circumstances occurs well before the 180 days after the petition filing. So overall this case the successor interest issue was big there was no successor interest qualification for EB-1c. And also portability wouldn't play let's say if that successor interest somehow did exist, because the business was essentially done within the 180 days. And there's no long-term employment possibly. It was already clear that this was going to shut down with no intent of future work.

Now when reading that and maybe explain to you may sound kind of confusing because it is, I could see arguments going the way, it's not the clearest answer but one thing the AAO does and I've seen is if they find one thing they don't like the successor and interest, they don't want just give it one page denial so they add on stuff and just pile it on. This was confusing a little bit, but I think it ended right, they shouldn't have filed this case there's no point in having this kind of thing come out and appeal. Now I have show notes to the stuff that applies to these cases that I'm talking about judicator’s field manual the new fell memo from August 6, 2009, which talks about this. And that the new regulation after that was updated in January.

Now the second case was kind of fun and it's an issue that comes up actually in my L1 cases a lot. And it's with regards to an employee or the beneficiary working overseas and wanted to come to work for the petition in the US but they had worked overseas but maybe they weren't the easiest, it wasn't the easiest way to show that they were directly employed for the foreign company. In this case, it's a matter of an incorporated from January 2017. A computer software and hardware developer tried to get a green card for a software engineering manager in automation. So when they filed the case and this is September 27, 2013, when they filed a petition. And what really frustrates me again when its bad representation if they used an attorney, in this case, is that you know you filed something in 2013 decision comes in January 2017. So that's essentially two years and four months if I'm doing my math right and there waiting for a decision on the EB-1c. When at the very beginning they shouldn't filed it because it was a bad case and here in here it says "A petitioner’s manager of immigrations." So I think they have some sort of in-house non-lawyer probably doing the immigration stuff, but they should have caught this and not wasted two years and probably tens of thousands of dollars on this process that leads nowhere. This was just obvious from the beginning. They're nuances on this that I'll talk about which could have gone the other way if done right. But they failed to do it here and it comes up a lot. I'll talk about my personal experiences after I go through the law. The petitioner stated and this is in the AAO decision I think they're quoting the person that before entering the US the beneficiary that was coming to work in the US worked with now quote not for but worked with the petitioners wholly owned subsidiary in Ireland.

Now the petition here says that it has a subsidiary in Ireland and the beneficiary did work for the subsidiary in Ireland at the direction of its Irish employees. So because of that it was essentially an employee of its Irish subsidiary and could be transferred to the US. The actually employer of the beneficiaries was unrelated didn't have a qualifying co-relationship in any way and they agreed to that with the petitioner or even the foreign company. They cited the Darden case which comes up a lot and that's something you definitely need to read if you're doing these complex L1 or EB-1c cases. Because it comes to the matter of who controls who and it goes both into the qualifying relationships, and then primarily then goes to if someone's really an employee. And this context comes up when I first started doing it I want to do stuff like that, I really solve this but the more deeper I got the more types of calls I got especially with people calling me about like L1 EB1c [they're] on the difficult side of cases, especially when they are smaller companies. And the issue is, when is somebody actually an employee? And surprisingly the term employee is really vague still it doesn't have the best definitions it's still this convoluted explanation. And here they're arguing the beneficiary was an employee in Ireland even though they were employed by another company. But the fact that they were like in the operations of the Irish subsidiary they could count.

Now the Darden case it says "In determining whether hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished." So the control they have over the person how they do their job is the key way to show if someone's an employee. That's very very important it allows you that kind of language, it allows you to get away with a lot of stuff in the L1/EB-1c context. Because sometimes you have people that want to transfer to the US that weren't technically employed or it's vague they're independent contractors. If you could document, and the key is documentation and you know they're going t look at this with a magnifying glass. But if you could document it and I'll talk about a case that I'm working on I'm going to document it you could get away with it, but it's tough and you got to warn the client about this. So say among the other factors [involve] into this inquiry are the skill required the source of instrumentalities and tools the location of the work the duration and relationship between the parties whether the hiring party have the right to assign additional projects, the hired party, the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work, that's really cute. In the US when you talk about independent contractor suing people for not getting pay or suing the employer they go to the idea of the employer that was hiring the independent contractor have a right to control the person say "come here 9 leave at 5," all that kind of stuff. How to talk to clients, how to represent yourself, and how much control they have over them. But that's an employment law issue. But again when you think about immigration law people think its all deportation. Employment law has a big play when it comes into these EB-1c L1 cases because you have to show if they're a real employer or not.

We're moving forward. The extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work...I think I read that already...the method of payment, that was a tricky one they say that here but sometimes it goes both directions it's pretty flexible. You would think the pain into getting paid a wage would be the biggest one but that's not when I read these cases. The hired party's' role in hiring and paying assistants, whether the work is part of the regular business or the hiring party, whether the hiring party is in a business provision of employee benefits and the tax treatment of the hired party. That ladder one is a tricky one I'm working with on the case I'll talk about. In my case, the client wanted to get paid intentionally as an independent contractor because it was preferential tax treatment. You see a lot of different foreign countries like, I have a Brazilian case where in Brazil, this is just crazy in the place they are. Like the employees get taxed at some ridiculous number, like 80% or some ridiculous number of taxation rate that they get when they're executives. So what they do over there is get hired as independent contractors even though they're like CEO's and top executives of the company, so they get that better tax treatment. In the US they kind of do that too when I worked at entertainment... I [mean] the names on my LinkedIn...NBCUniversal, I always saw like...and I was an intern there, but I saw everybody had a Corporation that would be hired for their acting or directing or producing or whatever. So when you have this kind of case you have to explain to a USCIS how the system works or maybe get a letter from a Tax Accountant they get some sort of law that says, even though they're independent contractors that just a scheme people use as lawful scheme, but it's good for tax purposes really explaining that.

Now the petitioner manager for immigration and different letters of managers of the Irish company they gave letters saying that this person is an employee this and that, but that was it. They gave these letters talking about this but not much else. And they said...the decision said the petitions rely only upon its own assertions. They submitted copies of two reference letters that were essentially identical. They didn't provide documentation to the nature and extent of the over side that the beneficiary had. So beneficiary working for the Irish subsidiary how did the managers control them, how did the beneficiary represent themselves as being working for the company nothing else just statements.  I work mostly with small companies in new office the ones they makes you grow a little bigger and they go in [everyone see] and I have to document the hell out of it because I can't leave any room for these kinds of things. Now I don't get these big companies like multinational a thousand person companies. Their documentation is much slimmer; I guess they don't have to document as much as I do with these small companies because they're less suspicious of them. So person made their attorney was use to doing that kind of stuff to just write letters like a simple letter to accommodate USCIS judicator. But letters are very important you got to be very careful how you word them in the L1 EB-1c context but you got to document the hell out of it. Anyway, you could show this person was actually working there working in the manager role, and some of these cases had issues with the manager role too and this one did too as well which I 'm not going to go into it too much. But you had to use whatever you can to show this person was actually working there in any way possible.

You can't leave it up to chance or have some two letters that's not going to work out. So the focusing is on establishing power of control of an employee which they fail to do so here. 

Finally, as an additional reasoning, this has its own part as I said earlier. They didn't describe how the beneficiary was going to be in a managerial responsibility duty in the US. And this is pretty much like 80% of the time when cases or denied in these kind of L1 EB-1c context is because they do a horrible job proving that or showing that by providing us with evidence that they could be employed in the qualifying position. But the interesting thing that was happening here which is happening a lot now that the systems between internal USCIS and state department are so matched up is, they looked at another EB3 perm filing for this beneficiary and solved the job duties that are listed. And in compared to the job duties now, they said the EB3 context that was going to be a regular employee. EB-1c was going to be a manager executive. Those don't match, they say no they're different things but USA says "No no this is the same situation you're trying to get out in two different ways we're using that against you as discrepancy." So you got to be careful you got to ask clients about that. Again might have mentioned this in previous podcast, but, they are checking state department records and people do get caught staying in a DS-160 on a tourist visa or on a student visa that, no I wasn't employed and they come in back do an L1 and say "oh yeah I was employed one year, they're going to check that now. The technologies have made it easier for them to do it and if the officer has the patients to look back or have suspicion where they need to look back; it's very simple for them to do. So you have to ask the client if possible to get a copy of DS-160 which they usually don't keep. FOIA if you can I've been FOIA before because I haven't had to but the [said] part FOIA is a little weird sometimes they don't give you anything but it's worth a shot to be careful because it can create a lot of problems.

The next case is a cool case it does a great job breaking down the functional manager L1a or in the context EB-1c responsibilities judicator guidelines. Now the function manager is something I avoid using as much as possibly because the standard is so vague that I don't like leaving it up to chance of doing that. But if you need to you can do that. Now in this case I wouldn't have done it this way because this case the company had 250 employees it had over $100million in earnings on the petitioner most recent tax return. So when you have that kind of employees you could show the company somehow that they're executive they had people underneath them, managers, and all that kind of stuff. To go out of the way to do a functional manager case that leads you open to initial denial which will require an appeal, it didn't make sense to me but they sustained it. Now they sight matter Z in there too. The [goals] to this case is called matter G-ink February 17, 2017. I'll have the link to all these stuff in the show notes. But I'm not going to go into detail but it really breaks down what they consider the rule for a functional manager. It's kind of like a law school exam the Iraq had so they have the rule and then the analysis based on the facts. So they have like a five-parter here breaking down the different parts of the functional manager, it seems very helpful to give you an idea how to look at it. But again these functional manager cases that have been approved by [appeal] they're usually these humongous companies that could have probably worked on somewhere another if they just put it in as an executive and did the description of the job duty right made a job chart showing all kind of stuff what responsibilities are and who the employees are all that kind of stuff. I don't like messing around with functional manager it's like playing with fire. That's a last option for me. Just the manager content I generally avoid.

So that's that now go into the fourth case this is another one of those fancy lawyering mess ups disappointing lawyering if you will. In this case, it's a matter of USAN-W-A-D-M there is another case a matter of M-A-B-W, surprisingly, I think they're totally different cases facts and everything. But they both came during the same time period about the joint venture aspect for qualifying relationship. I'm going to kind of merge these two when I'm talking about it so if you look into one of these you might not see both of them but I'm just saying most not one. It wasn't well thought-out this could have been fixed in my opinion if they just did it right or maybe the business [inaudible] wouldn't allow it. But the interesting thing is in that first case and I usually sight to the matter of USAN-W- blah blah blah February 2017. It says the director certify the decision to the AAO because the case involved an unusual complex or novel issue of law. Which I didn't really think it did but sure if they say that. Now the issue is the term joint venture has never had a proper definition in the regulation. But they say pressing a case law states that the term joint venture applies to a business enterprise in which two or more economic entity from different countries participate on a permanent basis. This is a matter of Hue from 1982 which is an important case to really know and have the L1 EB-1c handbook.

And as a further both under the uniform partnership act and the Florida revised uniform partnership act. Requires that the partnership which a petitioner and a beneficiary's foreign employer claim to have form through the pre-port execution of the joint venture agreement. It must be an entity that exists separate from the partners that comprise the partnership. So essentially in these cases what they did is there was a US petitioner that was completely its own company. There is a foreign company that employed the beneficiary for one year are more and these two companies came together and say we have a project we want to set up. We're going to set up this separate joint venture that's going to do a 50/50 and the employee is going to transfer...and this is where it gets funny... but employee is essentially transferring to the US joint venture to operate the joint venture. 

Now, this is where the problems erupt. And these cases they put the US Company that was, not the joint venture, but the US partner of the company as the petitioner. However, the employee of the beneficiary would actually be working for the joint venture. And the foreign company had no relationship with the US company petitioner so there's no qualifying relationship. If they both have 50% ownership in another joint venture it's kind of like they're subsidiary, each owning 50/50. The petitioner here or the US Company doesn't have a qualifying relationship. The foreign company should have owned the petitioner ownership in control maybe own 1% of it but control the company or vice versa or the petitioner should have been the joint venture itself, that way we could say the foreign company owns 50% of this US company and that US company is a petitioner. Here first of all the US company, I'm sorry the joint ventures were new so they wouldn't qualify under the one-year statute for the EB-1c which means the existence has to be open for one year and operating. And two in these cases they never register the joint venture as a separate legal entity. Never had an ITN number a federal ID number, I'm sorry not an ITN a federal ID number and all the rest. They both now are confused the director says I'm confused. Why is the petitioner petitioning when they should be joining venture but, nonetheless, if they join venture there it wouldn't work either. Because it was not properly registered it was in existence for the necessary amount of time, it didn't make sense. And this is something should be easily caught I'm not sure why this is a difficult situation to grasp but they have to ask the AAO as a complex issue. So the case failed obviously and both cases and they lost out a lot of time wasted. And you know time is so important when businesses come to me, like, I'm dealing with another case that another attorney allegedly file the L1 and they're waiting on decision they do premium processing. I'm telling them listen you guys are successful every day that goes by when you're waiting on L1 decision that's a bunch of money that could be made. In my time right now I'm a solo but I’m doing so many things. You know I get Uber Eats as much as I can and they're service is starting to suck so bad I'm going to stop but, I'm paying like additional amount of money that would deliver to me every day. But for me to walk over the store next door and wait in line for the food, it's worth the 5 - 10 extra dollars I'm spending because on the other end standing in my office and thinking about cases or marketing or getting a case and getting it done is going to make me way more money. 

Now I enjoy sometimes walking to the store and just being around people and stuff and I do that was necessary. But to waste time for a multinational business that could potentially make a million dollars is a ridiculous thing. So waiting on an I-140 decisions which doesn't have premium processing takes forever and then appealing it to the AAO doesn't make any sense. They should have just done L1 with the joint venture transfer the guy over first waited a year so I will develop [pretend to even unseen.] The person would be here they would get their green card a little later so what. If it was really that big a deal for the companies they could have transferred to the petitioner and developed some sort of ownership control. Which actually goes back thinking about one case that I was going to talk about earlier which is...initially, I have...now when I talk about terrible lawyering that happen in these kind of cases, it's not necessary always the lawyer that does this. I have a case that matches I think the second case I talked about. Where there's a foreign employer the employer wants to come to the US do an L1 eventually get the green card. Now the employee never wanted to be directly working for the company because the tax treatment he would have received would have been better if he was considered like an independent contractor. So I don't want to give you too much details of the case, but, the foreign companies in Western Europe which would, it's actually a parent company but that's a new one I'll talk about. The other employee is a non-western European country and he found that if they just pay him and they wiring the money in his other country's account as a contractor it's going to alleviate a lot of taxes for him, but he has a work permit in that Western European country always working there and so I think I could put together that he's an employee, even though it's kind of like that Irish case, but when they transfer money for his wages from the western European company to his bank account, it goes to his business bank account, which only has one type of deposit every month going, which is his payment, then the company is wholly owned by him hundred percent. So it's really obviously connecting the dots that this is a company used just for the wages to go in. The guy has a work permit for that country. He has a business card that shows there. He has contracts he signed, he has an appointment agreement that specifies this. They pay for his phone bill and his lease in that home country. So there's all these different documentations I'm showing that this guy is really unemployed. I was worried at first about this, I had to study a lot. I was comfortably enough of filing that but then the next step with this case and then it goes to these qualifying relationship kind of stuff is, the foreign western European company is afraid of the US tax system. 

So they want to make a subsidiary and they are going to control it really but they don't have ownership and when you go in these qualifying relationship since 8 CFR 214, what is it, I'm trying to memorize all these in the CFR sections but in the section of visas, it says that there's different ways you could do a subsidiary relationship and the last line of it, it says it's about ownership and control. You could have a minority ownership but just have control over it. So I said listen ideally they would own 51%, make like easy on me and you but the foreign company is one of the majority owner. So I said okay, maybe 10, 20 percent, at the end I'm just like, let's try one percent, foreign company owns one percent but the rest of the board or the owners actually the shareholders up to 51%. We put it

together letter saying we give full control over our voting shares, 51% or maybe 50 to show how the negative factor he'd deny everyone else, is to that parent company and I was like well I'll give that a try. I think I can argue it technically as around the books. I know they can give you problems on that but we're right, if you really want to do it, they really want to do that. I said okay I'll do it. Come back later they say actually the foreign company is afraid, they don't want to deal with you as regulation this and that. So they don't want to one percent but we still want to go ahead. I said listen brother that doesn't make any sense if we have only control and no ownership that's going to be a problem, they're going to deny the case. He goes like no I don't care I want to do it anyway.
So then I went go back and tell him listen, do you really want to spend tens of thousand dollars on a business lawyers, my fees, filing fees, waiting the time, investing in the business, do all kind of stuff just to get a denial and let's say the L1 is approved because the L1 sometimes just immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, you can get away with stuff. I like the L1 case that are ridiculous I see, but let's say they'll want to get it, they're going to catch this on the ev1 see stage. The officers pay attention and so don't mess around. And you know I lose a lot of money just being real with my client but I'd rather do that, than get a bad review on yelp saying this guy you know mess with me and then wasted my money but barring that, in addition I just don't want to waste the guys time and money you know it's not necessary. So that was my two sentence on these recent cases. Sorry if I was a little harsh on their lawyers but if you want to see examples of bad lawyering, read these AAO cases it's incredible that these people have the courage to take money from clients that appeal these kind of cases, which are so obviously bad. 

Now there's nuggets of sustained appeals, which are good but especially L1/EB1C context majority of them are awful. There is no point in of filing, I would say at least for the persons in these cases, let alone appealing them, so unless the employer, the petitioner just said screw it, let's do it, even then they shouldn't do it. Their names on this case that they would file something so bad. Now a days they don't talk, they don't say who the lawyer was but in these cases but on the ethic side I think it's a big problem I'm seeing a lot on these cases, that people are even imagining or having, that are even doing this, but it's really good for helping learn the limits of these cases. So it's really important to read and it's very difficult to read because there's so many of them, especially at once. It's very time-consuming to go through. I read them all and I do for EB1C and L1 I do synopsis of them. It's too much work to post them all up. I do the L1's on my website JK law.com, on the L1 tab. There are synopsis of these cases if you want to read them. They're a little shorter than what they have instead of 16 pages, over two pages on my site for each case as they come out, but for EB1C I have them but uploading them on my site takes so long that I've like a year or two worth of EB1C's posted, but if you have the time go back five, six, seven, years, they're there on these L1 cases. Once you read I don’t know a thousand L1 cases, it turn into an email from the matrix where you just see an L1 case from a mile away knowing what the glitches are. It's pretty fun and it makes you very comfortable is when the clients do come to you and they ask you, you give them a lot of confidence knowing that you're just so comfortable with it. You've seen where the borders of these are. Sometimes borders aren't clear but you know where you could push in, where you can't and that's a very good thing on this kind of case. That's kind of a luring I would expect of my lawyer to do, that's why I primarily don't take on certain types of business cases, because unless I'm going to put like all my time to studying it day and night kind of like a martial arts practitioner, putting their discipline into what they're doing, they're learning whatever branch of the martial arts they are doing just putting their all into it. 

But it's really good to read these in a case here and there, to get yourself on top of it. There are lucrative cases, so it's worth the time definitely and the clients are excellent

Usually…usually. I really enjoy my business clients because they're just on top of it. Their documentation is good. I learned so much from the various aspects of life and business and there they've seen the world. It's just a really good friendship that develops and it's a gift that keeps on giving. L1 is that we have to redo it and you go and see eventually, eventually citizenship. So it's a good long-term client that has money. So on that aspect this business is good on a personal level it's good too, that's why I love business based immigration cases. I hope you enjoyed this episode please like us on YouTube and follow if you're on iTunes, please leave a review and follow. If you're an attorney feel free to contact me info at JQK law.com to become a member of the immigration lawyers’ listerv. You go to immigration lawyers lister.com and the way listerv is spelled is going to be weird but just go to JQK law.com, on the top left there will be a bun for the listserv and you could you could learn what that's about and do that and you know if you have questions comments, corrections anything, just email me info at JQK law.com. I'm always interested in learning more. So I'm down to hear it and develop a relationship and feel free to listen another podcasts and I'll have a weekly recap coming up this weekend which should be fun. Thanks so much you'll have a great day, bye bye.



For Immigration Lawyers!

Visit www.ImmigrationLawyersListserv.com to join free forums to discuss immigration issues with other Immigration Lawyers. Only licensed attorneys are allowed to join!

Contact Us! Gives Us Your Thoughts!

Is there any question you have regarding the podcast guest that is not addressed in this blog post? Please leave me a comment below or send me your thoughts at ImmigrationLawyersListserv@gmail.com.  I would really appreciate your feedback, your suggestion on future guests, or just an opportunity to chat with you!

*None of the information provided here is considered legal advice. Please consult an attorney privately.