remanded EB-1C Case: Commercial Kitchens

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 22, 2024 InRe: 31135010 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner lists its business as "B2B commercial kitchens" and seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its "Director" 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 )(1 )(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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad or 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in an executive 
capacity. 1 The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
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)(l)(C) of the Act. 
The Form 1-140, 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 
1 The Petitioner's claim regarding the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed employment is based exclusively on the 
definition of executive capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was or would be employed in a 
managerial capacity. 
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). 
IT. BASIS FOR REMAND 
The Director's decision did not offer a complete analysis of the denial grounds listed above, nor did it 
adequately explain the deficiencies in the evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § l 03.3(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). 
First, under the section heading "Qualifying Corporate Relationship," the Director sought to determine 
whether a qualifying relationship exists between the Petitioner and I I the 
Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer. 2 However, despite outlining the components of a qualifying 
relationship and recognizing that "[tt ]he I I [ the Petitioner] is a [sic] currently a wholly 
owned subsidiary of the Director did not reach the correct conclusion regarding 
the parent-subsidiary relationship. Evidence in the record includes a stock ledger, stock certificate, 
and a document titled "Unanimous Joint Written Consent of the Board of Directors and Sole 
Shareholder of the These documents show that although 
originally owned all 1500 shares of the Petitioner's stock, I Iassigned those shares to 
I l on October 26, 2016, thus creating a parent-subsidiary relationship between 
I ]and the Petitioner. The record shows that the same relationship continues to exist 
and did exist at the time this petition was filed in March 2022. Based on the evidence before us, the 
Director's conclusion to the contrary is therefore incorrect and must be withdrawn. 
Under the same section heading the Director contemplated whether the Beneficiary "gained [one] year 
of qualifying experience as a Director ofl Ian issue that is not relevant in this matter 
since the Beneficiary's position with I I not his position withl II I is the basis of the Petitioner's claim regarding the question of whether the Beneficiary 
attained one year of qualifying experience abroad. 
The denial also includes separate section headings titled "Qualifying Executive Capacity - United 
States" and "Qualifying Executive Capacity - Overseas," where the Director concluded that the 
evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States or that he 
was employed abroad in an executive capacity. The Director, however, did not offer a cogent analysis 
explaining the basis for these conclusions. Rather, the Director's discussion of the Beneficiary's 
foreign and proposed positions focused exclusively on a single letter that discussed the Beneficiary's 
appointment to a board position within the foreign entity's organization. And although the Director 
highlighted the letter's reference to the Beneficiary's foreign position as a non-executive director who 
was not involved in the foreign entity's "day to day management," there is no discussion of these 
factors within the context of the four-prong definition of executive capacity, nor is there a discussion 
of any other evidence. The USCIS Policy Manual advises that when making a determination of a 
beneficiary's managerial or executive capacity, we "should look first to the petitioner's description of 
2 To establish a qualifying relationship under the statute and the regulations, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary's 
foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (for example, a U.S. entity with a foreign office) 
or related as a parent and subsidiary or as affiliates. 6 USCIS Policy Manual, F.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 
the job duties." 6 USCIS Policy Manual, F.4(C)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual; see 
also 8 CFR 204.5(j)(5). The denial in this instance does not include a discussion of this relevant 
information. 
Further, a comprehensive analysis should also include consideration of "any other facts contributing 
to a complete understanding of a beneficiary's actual role in the business." Id. Again, the Director's 
analysis in this instance was incomplete and did not include consideration of the Beneficiary's job 
duties or other relevant facts or evidence. The Director also did not explain how a letter that pertains 
to the Beneficiary's foreign position is relevant to the issue of his proposed position with the U.S. 
entity. As such, the Director did not adequately identify or discuss the evidentiary deficiencies that 
formed the basis for concluding that the Beneficiary was not employed abroad and would not be 
employed in the United States in an executive capacity. 
Based on the foregoing, it is not clear that the record was reviewed in its entirety and analyzed 
sufficiently. Notwithstanding the lack of a proper analysis, however, the record lacks sufficient 
evidence to establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United 
States in an executive capacity, as claimed. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position. 
Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish the 
goals and policies" of an organization or major component or function thereof. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) 
of the Act. To show that a beneficiary will "direct the management" of an organization or a major 
component or function of that organization, a petitioner must show how the organization, major 
component, or function is managed and demonstrate that the beneficiary primarily focuses on its broad 
goals and policies, rather than the day-to-day operations of such. An individual will not be deemed 
an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the 
organization, major component, or function as the owner or sole managerial employee. A beneficiary 
must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and receive only "general 
supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
organization." Id. 
Here, the record shows that the Beneficiary held a board of director's position as a non-executive 
director, which involved approximately 18 days of work per year. 3 It is unclear how the Beneficiary 
could have directed the management of the organization given the limited time commitment required 
to fulfill the responsibilities of his position. See section 101(a)(44)(B)(i) of the Act. And despite the 
Petitioner's claim that the foreign entity's board of directors represented the "highest level of 
[ m ]anagement," it is unclear how, with only 18 days of work per year, the Beneficiary could have met 
the entirety of the foreign employment provision, which requires at least one year of employment 
outside the United States in a managerial or executive capacity as of this petition's filing in March 
2022. See section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) (requiring that eligibility 
requirements be met as of the date a petition is filed). 
Although a job duty breakdown has been provided for the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. position, the 
specific terms of that position have not been outlined. We note, however, that a limited time 
3 RFE response exhibit H, "Letter of Appointment," clause 2.1. 
3 
commitment like that of the Beneficiary's position abroad would prompt us to question how the 
Beneficiary would direct the management of the U.S. organization. See section 101(a)(44)(B)(i) of 
the Act. 4 
In sum, the record as presently constituted does not establish that the Beneficiary merits the 
immigration benefit sought. 
Regardless, because the Director's decision did not adequately analyze the facts of the matter and 
clearly apply the regulatory standards, we will remand the matter for entry of a new decision. The 
Director should request any additional evidence warranted and allow the Petitioner to submit such 
evidence within a reasonable period. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4 The Petitioner's response in Part 6, Item 4 of the petition form shows that the Beneficiary's proposed position is claimed 
to be full-time. However, the Beneficiary's proposed annual salary of $41,416.73, despite marginally exceeding his foreign 
compensation of €32,437 in 2019 and €29,678 in 2020, does not appear to indicate that the time commitment of the 
proposed position would sufficiently increase to warrant the designation of "full-time," which typically involves a 40-hour 
workweek. 
4