Date of Decision: September 27, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Wire and Cable Wholesaling
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Chief Financial Officer
Field: Wire and Cable Wholesaling
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved, then revoked
Appeal Outcome: Director’s Decision Withdrawn, Case Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a wholesaler of wire and cable products serving the energy and telecommunications industry, sought to employ the beneficiary as its chief financial officer under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.
The Texas Service Center initially approved the petition but later revoked the approval, concluding that the petitioner had willfully misrepresented material facts regarding the beneficiary’s past employment experience. The director determined that the petitioner had provided inaccurate information about the beneficiary’s foreign employment and U.S. work location, which led to the revocation.
On appeal, the petitioner argued that the revocation was not supported by substantial evidence and that the notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) lacked specific details to allow a meaningful rebuttal. The Administrative Appeals Office conducted a de novo review and determined that the director’s decision lacked sufficient explanation and was impermissibly vague. As a result, the revocation was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was whether the director provided a legally sufficient basis for revoking the petition’s approval. The director identified three main concerns:
- Discrepancies in the Beneficiary’s Employment History – The director found inconsistencies in the beneficiary’s reported job duties and employment timeline. The beneficiary’s prior role as a dentist before transitioning to a financial leadership position was cited as a basis for questioning the validity of her experience.
- Work Location Discrepancy – The petition listed the U.S. work location as Texas, but an interview with the beneficiary revealed that she worked remotely from Florida. The director raised concerns about whether this discrepancy undermined the petitioner’s claim regarding the beneficiary’s role and responsibilities.
- Lack of Supporting Evidence – The director determined that the petitioner had not provided sufficient documentation to establish that the beneficiary was employed in an executive capacity in the foreign entity. The director cited the beneficiary’s inability to name her direct reports during a 2020 interview as evidence that she was not functioning as a chief financial officer.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office determined that the director’s decision did not meet the legal standard for revoking an approved petition. The decision was based on general allegations rather than a substantive analysis of the petitioner’s evidence.
Key findings included:
- The NOIR did not provide specific discrepancies or contradictions in the beneficiary’s employment history beyond stating general concerns. The petitioner had consistently reported that the beneficiary transitioned from a prior career in dentistry to an administrative and financial role in the foreign entity. There was no evidence that the petitioner concealed this transition or misrepresented the timeline.
- The director’s concerns about the beneficiary’s work location were not directly relevant to the legal standard for executive capacity. The petitioner provided evidence that the beneficiary’s duties allowed remote work, including oversight of financial operations across multiple international locations.
- The petitioner submitted affidavits and internal communications supporting the beneficiary’s role, but the director dismissed them without sufficient explanation. The Administrative Appeals Office instructed the director to conduct a more detailed analysis of the evidence before making a final determination.
Given these deficiencies, the Administrative Appeals Office withdrew the revocation and remanded the case for further review.
Supporting Evidence
- Organizational structure and job description for the beneficiary’s foreign and U.S. roles
- Internal company communications confirming the beneficiary’s financial oversight responsibilities
- Payroll records and tax documents verifying employment history
- Affidavits from executives confirming the beneficiary’s transition to financial leadership
- Email records demonstrating the beneficiary’s role in financial decision-making
Additional Notes
The Administrative Appeals Office emphasized that a NOIR must provide specific factual reasons for revocation, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the concerns. The decision clarified that prior employment in a different industry does not automatically disqualify a beneficiary from EB-1C eligibility, as long as the petitioner can demonstrate that the beneficiary has assumed an executive or managerial role.
Additionally, the ruling underscored that working remotely does not inherently invalidate a petition if the beneficiary’s executive responsibilities can be performed effectively from a different location.
The Texas Service Center was directed to conduct a full reassessment of the case and issue a new decision that includes a more detailed evaluation of the petitioner’s claims and supporting evidence.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The revocation was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review.
Reasoning: The director’s decision lacked sufficient factual support and did not provide the petitioner with a meaningful opportunity to rebut the alleged discrepancies. A new decision must include a proper analysis of the petitioner’s evidence.
