Date of Decision: January 17, 2025
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Restaurant and Food Services
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Quality Assurance Manager
Field: Restaurant and Food Services
Nationality: Indian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved, then revoked
Appeal Outcome: Director’s Motion Denial Withdrawn
Motion Outcome: Remanded for New Decision
Case Overview
The petitioner, a chain of restaurants and sweet shops, filed an I-140 petition to permanently employ the beneficiary as a quality assurance manager under the EB-1C classification. USCIS originally approved the petition in December 2020 while the beneficiary was in the U.S. in L-1A status. In October 2023, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR), citing concerns about the managerial nature of the role and potential misrepresentation. USCIS revoked the approval in April 2024. The petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, which was dismissed in July 2024. The AAO reviewed the dismissal and determined the Director did not adequately explain the reasons, depriving the petitioner of a fair opportunity to respond. The case is remanded.
Key Issues
- Insufficient Explanation in Motion Dismissal:
The Director’s denial of the motion to reconsider failed to specify which motion requirements were not met or how the petitioner’s evidence was insufficient. This lacked the detail required by law and precedent. - Lack of Specific Grounds:
The Director’s statement that the petitioner failed to meet the preponderance of evidence standard did not explain which part of the evidence or classification requirements were unmet. No mention was made of how the beneficiary failed to qualify. - Unaddressed Arguments by Petitioner:
The petitioner argued the Director ignored submitted evidence, misinterpreted exhibits, and relied on issues not stated in the NOIR. These arguments were not addressed in the motion decision, which made the review incomplete and procedurally unfair.
USCIS Findings
- The Director’s decision lacked adequate explanation for dismissing the motion.
- The motion dismissal failed to address the petitioner’s legal and factual arguments.
- Without clear reasoning, the decision deprived the petitioner of a fair chance to appeal.
Supporting Evidence
- Petitioner’s motion to reconsider
- USCIS Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR)
- Arguments regarding evidence misinterpretation and procedural fairness
Additional Notes
USCIS emphasized that all denial and revocation decisions must include detailed reasoning. The failure to explain which elements were deficient or which evidence was insufficient constitutes a due process concern and justifies withdrawal and remand.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Director’s decision withdrawn; case remanded
Reasoning: The decision failed to provide specific reasons for dismissing the motion and did not address the petitioner’s key arguments.
