Opinion ID: 3211982
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Mahalaxmi Amba Jewelers (Mahalaxmi) is a family-owned business in Delhi, India that filed a partnership deed in 2006 under the laws of India. The Mahalaxmi partnership deed states that there are four partners: Shammi Anand, Vijay Anand, Sanjiv Anand, and Akshay Anand. Shammi is the elder brother of Vijay and Sanjiv; Akshay is Shammi’s son. Shammi and Akshay each own 16.7% of the business, while Vijay and Sanjiv each own 33%. Karats Inc. (Karats) is a Kansas corporation that operates a jewelry store in Overland Park, Kansas. The Karats common stock, at one vote per share, is held as follows: Shammi holds 151,500 shares, Sanjiv and Vijay each hold 12,000 shares, and Akshay holds 562,5000 shares. In addition, Shammi holds all 12,000 shares of Class A stock at 70 votes per share. From 2006 through 2010, the agency annually granted Akshay an L-1A non-immigrant visa allowing him to work at Karats. In 2009, Mahalaxmi filed a petition for an I-140 immigrant visa to classify Akshay as a multinational executive or manager. The petition was denied, as was a second petition. Mahalaxmi filed a 2 third I-140 petition and provided additional documentation at the request of the agency. In the order under review here, the agency held that all of the criteria for granting an L-1A visa had been satisfied except the requirement that Mahalaxmi and Karats were “affiliates” because, although the evidence established Shammi’s control of Karats, it did not establish his control of Mahalaxmi. The agency reviewed the documents Mahalaxmi submitted, including (1) the partnership deed; (2) sections of the Indian Partnership Act of 1932; (3) letters dated February 2012 and April 2014, signed by Shammi, Sanjiv and Vijay stating that the decisions of Shammi, as the eldest, were “final and binding on the other partners in Mahalaxmi Amba Jewellers and . . . on the other shareholders in Karats, Inc.,” Aplt. App. Vol. 2, at 115; and (4) a statement from Mahalaxmi’s Indian accountant opining that that the February 2012 letter established that Shammi controlled all business decisions concerning Mahalaxmi, id. Vol. 1, at 91-92. The agency concluded that the letters signed by only three of the four partners were insufficient to amend the partnership deed because the deed requires any alteration to be included in an addendum, for which no evidence was submitted. In addition, the partnership deed provides that alterations must be mutually agreed upon by all partners, but only three of the four partners signed the purported alteration. The agency then rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that they demonstrated Shammi’s control of Mahalaxmi through a “course of dealing,” as authorized by the Indian Partnership Act, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate a course of dealing. 3 The plaintiffs appeal, arguing that they demonstrated Shammi’s control of Mahalaxmi by (1) the Mahalaxmi partnership documents, (2) a course of dealing as a family-owned business in India, and (3) the February 2012 and April 2014 letters, which are in essence a proxy agreement. They also contend that the agency failed to apply a broad definition of “affiliates.”1 They further contend that the agency’s prior approval of L-1A visas for Akshay compels approval of the I-140 visa.