Date of Decision: February 26, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Food Services
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Plant Manager
Field: Food Services
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Director’s decision withdrawn
Motion Outcome: Case remanded for new decision
Case Overview
The petitioner, a food services company, filed a Form I-140 petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as a plant manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational managers or executives.
The Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the beneficiary’s foreign employment did not meet the definition of managerial capacity. On appeal, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the director failed to conduct a complete analysis under the statutory standard and did not provide the petitioner an adequate opportunity to address key issues. The AAO withdrew the decision and remanded the matter for further adjudication, including the issuance of a new Request for Evidence (RFE).
Key Issues
The first issue was the director’s limited evaluation of the beneficiary’s foreign employment. While the director correctly identified that the beneficiary held two positions—regional manufacturing strategy manager and continuous improvement manager—the denial focused on timeline discrepancies rather than assessing whether the earlier position independently met the managerial standard.
The second issue involved failure to evaluate the full four-prong test for managerial capacity under INA § 101(a)(44)(A). The AAO noted that while the director discussed the duties and subordinates, the analysis did not address whether the beneficiary managed a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization—a critical part of the statutory test.
The third issue was the absence of relevant organizational documentation. Although the record contained two organizational charts, these depicted the beneficiary’s later position as a continuous improvement manager and not the relevant earlier role as regional manufacturing strategy manager. The AAO emphasized that organizational placement is necessary to evaluate managerial capacity within large, multi-layered entities.
The fourth issue concerned procedural fairness. Neither the denial nor the RFE asked the petitioner to submit organizational charts or descriptions that could help clarify the managerial scope and hierarchy of the earlier position. This failure denied the petitioner a fair chance to address key evidentiary gaps.
The fifth issue was the relevance of the time spent in the qualifying role. The AAO acknowledged that the second position did not meet the one-year requirement. Therefore, the petition’s viability rested solely on whether the beneficiary’s first role—regional manufacturing strategy manager—qualified as managerial under all elements of the statute.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office withdrew the director’s decision and remanded the matter for the following reasons:
- The director did not evaluate whether the beneficiary’s role involved managing a department, function, or component of the organization under INA § 101(a)(44)(A)(i).
- The RFE failed to request the type of documentation—such as relevant organizational charts—that would allow an accurate placement of the beneficiary’s role within the hierarchy.
- The AAO agreed that timeline discrepancies concerning the second role were not material because only the earlier role could potentially meet the one-year threshold.
- The submitted organizational charts pertained to the wrong position and could not support the claimed managerial duties.
- A remand was necessary to give the petitioner a fair opportunity to supplement the record and correct deficiencies through a new RFE process.
Supporting Evidence
- Job descriptions for regional manufacturing strategy manager and continuous improvement manager
- Two organizational charts (not corresponding to the qualifying role)
- Timeline explanations and employment history clarifications
- Prior RFE and denial notices
Additional Notes
The AAO underscored that for a position to qualify under the EB-1C managerial classification, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary managed an identifiable unit of the organization—not merely supervised employees. Organizational context, reporting lines, and control over strategic functions are crucial elements. USCIS is expected to evaluate these with precision and provide petitioners with specific requests to clarify gaps.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Director’s decision withdrawn; case remanded for new decision
Reasoning: The director failed to fully apply the statutory definition of managerial capacity and did not request sufficient documentation to support a fair adjudication. A new RFE is to be issued so the petitioner can clarify the nature of the beneficiary’s qualifying foreign role and its place within the corporate hierarchy.
