remanded EB-1C

remanded EB-1C Case: Commercial Banking

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Company ๐Ÿ“‚ Commercial Banking

Decision Summary

The petitioner submitted new evidence on appeal to demonstrate the beneficiary's managerial role, both in the proposed U.S. position and the prior foreign position. Because the AAO's review is limited to the record at the time of the initial decision, the case was remanded for the Director to consider the new evidence and issue a new decision.

Criteria Discussed

Managerial Capacity Executive Capacity

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11283868 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 29, 2020 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a company providing commercial banking services, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as a portfolio leader and vice president under the first preference immigrant classification 
for multinational executives or managers . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. ยง 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity or that she was employed in a managerial or executive capacity in her former 
position abroad. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States as a 
personnel manager overseeing subordinate supervisors and professionals and contends that she acted 
in this same qualifying capacity in her former position abroad. In addition, the Petitioner submits 
additional documentary evidence on appeal meant to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would act as a 
personnel manager in the United States and that she formerly acted in this capacity abroad . 
Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has submitted new evidence on appeal material to the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. As our review is limited to the evidence on the record at the time of the 
Director's adjudication, the Director is the more appropriate party to consider this new evidence and 
its impact on the Beneficiary 's eligibility . Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's decision and 
remand this matter for consideration of the new evidence and the entry of a new decision. See Matter 
of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Draft your EB-1C petition with AAO precedents

MeritDraft uses real AAO decisions to generate compliant petition arguments tailored to your evidence.

Sign Up Free →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.