Date of Decision: December 16, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Fitness Clothing Retail and Wholesale
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President and CEO
Field: Fitness Clothing Retail and Wholesale
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Director’s Decision Withdrawn, Case Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a fitness clothing retailer and wholesaler, sought to employ the beneficiary as its president and CEO under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.
The Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that it would employ the beneficiary in the United States in an executive capacity. The matter was appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for review.
Upon de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office determined that the director’s decision contained factual errors, lacked sufficient analysis, and failed to provide adequate discussion of the evidence in the record. As a result, the decision was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in an executive capacity.
The director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that the beneficiary’s role met the statutory definition of executive capacity. However, the decision contained factual inaccuracies, including:
- The director incorrectly stated that the petitioner’s business was maritime wholesale sales, when in fact, it is engaged in fitness clothing retail and wholesale. The petitioner argued that this mischaracterization undermined the decision’s credibility.
- The director cited employment contracts for the petitioner’s employees, but the petitioner had not submitted any employment contracts. The reference to nonexistent evidence raised concerns that the decision may have been based on documentation from an unrelated petition.
- The initial denial decision contained two pages of analysis referencing individuals and businesses unrelated to the petitioner. After the petitioner contacted U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for clarification, it received a revised decision, but factual errors remained.
Additionally, the director failed to properly consider the organizational chart and position descriptions for the beneficiary’s subordinates, which were submitted in response to a request for evidence. The Administrative Appeals Office determined that the director’s decision lacked sufficient explanation and did not fully assess the petitioner’s evidence.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office identified multiple deficiencies in the director’s decision, including:
- Incorrect references to a different industry and business type, which called into question the accuracy of the review.
- References to evidence that was not part of the record, suggesting possible reliance on unrelated documentation.
- Insufficient discussion of the petitioner’s evidence regarding the beneficiary’s executive role and the company’s staffing structure.
- A failure to provide a detailed analysis of how the petitioner’s submitted evidence did or did not meet the eligibility criteria.
Because the director’s decision did not provide a clear, fact-based rationale, the denial was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review. The Texas Service Center was instructed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the petitioner’s claims and supporting evidence before issuing a new decision.
Supporting Evidence
- Organizational chart demonstrating the beneficiary’s executive role and reporting structure
- Position descriptions for subordinate employees
- Financial and operational records confirming the company’s business activities
- Business registration and tax documentation
- Response to request for evidence with additional supporting documentation
Additional Notes
The Administrative Appeals Office emphasized that adjudicators must provide a clear and well-reasoned explanation for denials, ensuring that petitioners have a fair opportunity to contest the decision. The errors in this case, particularly references to unrelated businesses and evidence, rendered the decision unreliable and necessitated a remand.
Additionally, the office clarified that when evaluating executive capacity, adjudicators must consider the totality of the evidence, including the beneficiary’s discretionary authority, the company’s organizational structure, and the delegation of non-executive tasks to subordinates.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The denial was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review.
Reasoning: The director’s decision contained factual errors, referenced unrelated evidence, and did not provide a sufficient analysis of the petitioner’s claims. A new decision must be issued following a proper review of the record.