Date of Decision: November 27, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Micro-School Administration
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Micro-School Administration
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Director’s Decision Withdrawn, Case Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a privately owned micro-school, sought to employ the beneficiary as its president 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 the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial capacity or that she would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. The matter was then appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for further review.
Upon de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office determined that the director’s decision lacked sufficient reasoning and analysis of the evidence. As a result, the decision was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review.
Key Issues
The first issue was whether the petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition.
The director initially found that the petitioner submitted only a brief description of the beneficiary’s foreign employment, stating that she served as the foreign entity’s director with two subordinate employees. The request for evidence (RFE) asked for additional details, including an explanation of the beneficiary’s daily duties, the organizational structure of the foreign entity, and payroll records for the beneficiary and her subordinates.
In response, the petitioner submitted:
- A signed statement from the foreign entity’s sole director and legal representative confirming the beneficiary’s managerial duties
- A list of the foreign entity’s employees and contractors, including job descriptions, salaries, and educational credentials
- Payroll records from October 2023 through February 2024
- An expert opinion letter supporting the managerial nature of the beneficiary’s role
Despite this submission, the director determined that the evidence was insufficient. However, the decision failed to clearly articulate the deficiencies or explain why the documentation did not meet the evidentiary standard. Additionally, the director referred to the beneficiary’s position as a “hybrid capacity” role, even though the petitioner consistently asserted that the role was managerial. The Administrative Appeals Office found that the director’s decision did not properly analyze or address the submitted evidence.
The second issue was whether the beneficiary’s proposed U.S. employment met the requirements for managerial capacity.
The petitioner initially described the beneficiary’s role as overseeing school operations, managing subordinate personnel, analyzing financial and operational reports, and ensuring compliance with policies and educational standards. The organizational chart placed the beneficiary at the top of the hierarchy, overseeing a guide manager who managed four guides (teachers). The chart also showed a general manager, an administrator, and an administrative assistant who were planned hires for 2024.
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a detailed job breakdown, indicating the beneficiary’s time allocation across managerial tasks, including personnel management, financial oversight, risk management, marketing, and strategic planning.
The director denied the petition, citing inconsistencies between the organizational chart and payroll records, as well as concerns about whether the beneficiary was truly relieved from operational duties. However, the decision did not fully analyze the job descriptions of the beneficiary’s subordinates or assess whether they sufficiently supported the claim of managerial capacity.
The director also referenced the petitioner’s assertion that the beneficiary was simultaneously managing both the U.S. and foreign entities, suggesting this created a contradiction. However, the Administrative Appeals Office found that the decision failed to provide a meaningful analysis of whether this arrangement impacted the beneficiary’s eligibility.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office identified several deficiencies in the director’s decision:
- The director did not properly evaluate the evidence provided in response to the RFE regarding the beneficiary’s foreign employment.
- The decision incorrectly referred to the foreign role as a “hybrid capacity” without justification.
- The director focused on inconsistencies in payroll records without fully analyzing how the petitioner’s structure supported the claim of managerial capacity.
- The decision failed to explain how the beneficiary’s dual role in the U.S. and foreign entities affected her eligibility.
Due to these deficiencies, the decision was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review. The Texas Service Center was instructed to conduct a thorough review of the petitioner’s claims and supporting evidence before issuing a new decision.
Supporting Evidence
- Signed statements from the foreign entity’s director and legal representative
- Organizational charts for both the U.S. and foreign entities
- Payroll records and tax filings for the beneficiary and her subordinates
- Expert opinion letter assessing the beneficiary’s managerial responsibilities
- Job descriptions detailing the beneficiary’s responsibilities in the U.S. and abroad
Additional Notes
The Administrative Appeals Office emphasized that adjudicators must provide clear reasoning when denying petitions. A decision must fully articulate the reasons for denial and explain how the evidence does or does not meet the eligibility criteria. In this case, the director’s lack of detailed analysis resulted in a remand for further review.
The office also clarified that when determining managerial capacity, adjudicators must consider the totality of the evidence, including the company’s structure, subordinate employees’ duties, and the beneficiary’s role within the organization.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The denial was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review.
Reasoning: The director’s decision lacked sufficient reasoning and analysis, failing to fully address the petitioner’s evidence regarding the beneficiary’s foreign and U.S. employment. A new decision must be issued following a proper review.