remanded EB-1C Case: Air Compressor Parts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 18569668 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 13, 2022 
Form I-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, an importer and exporter of air compressor replacement parts, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its "Director of Sales and Marketing, Operations & Global Strategist) under 
the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). This 
classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the 
United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary's proposed employment would be in a managerial capacity as claimed. 
The Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen and reconsider, which the Director denied 
concluding that the underlying adverse decision would remain undisturbed. The matter is now before 
us on appeal, where we will consider the Petitioner's appeal as it relates to the Director's decision to 
deny the Petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Director did not adequately explain the deficiencies in the 
evidence in conformance with 8 C.F.R . § 103 .3 ( a)( 1 )(i), and , therefore, the Petitioner was not afforded 
a meaningful opportunity to challenge the adverse findings. Therefore, we will remand the matter for 
further proceedings. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or executive 
services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203 (b )(1 )(C) of the Act. 
The Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and that the prospective U.S. employer 
has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3 ). 
II. BASIS FOR REMAND 
As noted earlier, we find that the Director's decision did not adequately explain the deficiencies in the 
evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) 
(finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a 
meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Although the Director cautioned 
that a petitioner cannot claim to employ a beneficiary as a "hybrid 'executive/manager,"' the Director 
did not explain how this applies to the facts in the present matter, given that the Petitioner 
unequivocally stated that it planned to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity and the 
Director previously acknowledged this claim in the original May 2019 decision. 
Further, despite acknowledging that the Petitioner provided a job duty breakdown pertaining to the 
Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment, the Director declined to analyze the job description and 
make a determination upon the merits of the evidence. Instead, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner's references to a U.S. team and a team in Belgium indicated that not all of the Beneficiazy's 
job duties pertained to her proposed position with the U.S. entity. However, the description submitted 
indicates that this determination is incorrect and requires further clarification. We find that the 
Director's assessment sought to impose additional criteria that is not required by the statute or 
regulations. Although the Beneficiary's proposed job description indicates that the U.S. position will 
involve oversight of and collaboration with staff outside of the United States, this component does not 
create an ambiguity as to whether certain assigned job duties would be performed within the scope of 
the proposed U.S. employment. See Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 
2016). Likewise, the Director incorrectly determined that the Petitioner "submitted no organizational 
chart of the current U.S. structure and staffing levels." To the contrary, in response to a prior request 
for evidence the Petitioner provided several organizational charts depicting the U.S. entity's staffing 
as well as the staffing of organizational components operating outside of the United States. If these 
submissions were ambiguous, the Director should have noted the Petitioner's burden to clarify which 
employees comprise the U.S. team. In general, whether the Petitioner's staffing and the Beneficiazy's 
job duty breakdown support a favorable conclusion requires proper review of the relevant evidence. 
In light of the errors described herein, we find that the Director did not conduct a thorough review of 
the evidence. 
Because the Director's decision did not adequately analyze the facts of the matter and apply the law, 
we will remand the matter for entry of a new decision. The Director should request any additional 
evidence deemed warranted and allow the Petitioner to submit such evidence within a reasonable 
period of time. 
ORDER: The Director's decision on motion is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
2