EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives) USCIS Appeal Review – Managing Director – Real Estate FEB162023_01B4203

Date of Decision: February 16, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Real Estate


Beneficiary Information

Profession: Managing Director
Field: Real Estate
Nationality: Not Specified


Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded


Case Overview

The petitioner, a real estate company, sought to employ the beneficiary as its “Managing Director” under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, questioning whether the petitioner is a multinational entity conducting business in the United States and at least one other country. Additionally, the Director concluded that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity.

Key Issues

The Director’s denial raised concerns about whether the petitioner and the foreign entity were truly multinational and actively conducting business. The Director also questioned the managerial nature of the beneficiary’s roles, both abroad and in the U.S. The Director cited issues with the petitioner’s documentation, including inconsistencies in the job descriptions and the lack of clarity in the petitioner’s organizational structure.

USCIS Findings

Upon appeal, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director’s decision did not provide a complete analysis and contained errors, including a misinterpretation of the beneficiary’s previous nonimmigrant visa application. The AAO noted that the Director did not adequately explain the deficiencies in the evidence or fully consider the petitioner’s claims. As a result, the AAO withdrew the Director’s decision and remanded the case for further review.

Supporting Evidence

The petitioner provided a business license, balance sheets, organizational charts, and job descriptions as evidence. However, the AAO found that the Director did not fully consider this evidence, particularly regarding the petitioner’s claim of conducting business in multiple countries and the beneficiary’s role within the organizational hierarchy.

Additional Notes

The AAO instructed the Director to conduct a more thorough analysis of the evidence and requested additional documentation to address the concerns raised in the initial denial. The petitioner was given an opportunity to submit further evidence to support its claims.


Conclusion

Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review. The Director was instructed to request additional evidence and to issue a new decision based on a complete and accurate analysis of the record.

Download the Full Petition Review Here


Emmanuel Uwakwe
Emmanuel Uwakwe

I studied Electrical and Electronics Engineering and have a huge passion for tech related stuff :)

Articles: 1543

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *