remanded
EB-1C
remanded EB-1C Case: 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
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →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.
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.