Date of Decision: November 28, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Management Consulting Services
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General Manager
Field: Management Consulting Services
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a management consulting services company, sought to employ the beneficiary as its General Manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity and that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen, which the Director dismissed, leaving the previous denial undisturbed.
On appeal, the petitioner argued that the Director did not address the extensive additional material evidence provided with the motion to reopen, which included detailed documentation of the petitioner’s business model, the beneficiary’s managerial role, and the company’s operating structure. The petitioner asserted that the Director’s dismissal of the motion without considering this new evidence was unjust.
Upon de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) agreed with the petitioner, finding that the Director did not adequately address the merits of the motion to reopen. The AAO noted that the Director failed to acknowledge or analyze the new evidence submitted, which was critical for a fair evaluation of the petition. As a result, the AAO remanded the case to the Director for further review and a new decision.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the petitioner provided sufficient new evidence on motion to establish that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity both abroad and in the United States. The AAO found that the Director’s failure to analyze the new evidence and the arguments presented by the petitioner warranted a remand for further consideration.
USCIS Findings
The AAO determined that the Director’s decision did not provide an adequate explanation of why the submitted evidence was insufficient to meet the requirements for a motion to reopen. The AAO emphasized that the Director must fully address the petitioner’s claims and legal arguments to provide a fair opportunity for the petitioner to contest the decision and allow for meaningful appellate review.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted additional evidence, including detailed descriptions of the beneficiary’s managerial role, the petitioner’s business model, and organizational structure. The AAO found that this evidence was relevant and necessary for a thorough review of the petition.
Additional Notes
The AAO highlighted the importance of a complete and detailed review of all evidence submitted in support of a motion to reopen. The failure to adequately address the new evidence presented by the petitioner led to the remand of the case for further consideration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision of the Director was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review. The AAO instructed the Director to re-evaluate the evidence and issue a new decision consistent with the AAO’s analysis.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
