remanded EB-1C Case: Financial Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 26, 2025 In Re: 37073507 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a developer of financial automation technology, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as chief operating officer (COO). The company requests his classification under the 
employment-based, first-preference immigrant visa category as a "multinational executive." See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). 
Multinational organizations may sponsor aliens for U.S. permanent residence in this category to work 
in managerial or executive capacities. Id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary ' s foreign or proposed U.S. work in the claimed 
executive capacity. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director misunderstood evidence and 
law. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that the Director misanalysed the claimed nature of the Beneficiary's foreign and 
proposed U.S. work. We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for 
entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner must demonstrate that: 
• In the three years before the Beneficiary's U.S. entry as a nonimmigrant, a foreign entity 
employed him for at least one year in the claimed executive capacity. 
• It is the same employer or has a qualifying relationship with the entity that employed the 
Beneficiary abroad; 
• It has been doing business in the United States for at least one year; and 
• It offers the Beneficiary a job in the claimed executive capacity. 
See section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(3)(i)(B),(C), (D), (5). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The record shows that the Petitioner and its Colombian subsidiary operate the same business. The 
Petitioner states that the Beneficiary co-founded the organizations and worked at the Colombian 
subsidiary from June 2019 until transferring to the United States in September 2023. Since then, the 
Petitioner has employed him in the offered COO job, the same job he most recently held with the 
Colombian subsidiary. 
The term "executive capacity" means work "primarily" involving: 
• Directing the management of an organization or a major component or function of it; 
• Establishing the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
• Exercising wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
• Receiving only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, a board of 
directors, or organization stockholders. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B. 
When determining whether beneficiaries worked or would work in executive capacities, USCIS 
examines descriptions of the applicable job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) (requiring 
documentation "clearly describ[ing] the duties to be performed by the alien"). Petitioners must not 
only show that beneficiaries performed or would perform the high-level activities in the Act's 
definition of executive capacity, but also that they "primarily" performed or would perform executive 
duties as opposed to operational activities. See Ren v. USCIS, 60 F.4th 89, 94-95 (4th Cir. 2023). 
USCIS also considers: employers' organizational structures; the presence of other employees who 
relieved or could relieve beneficiaries from performing operational duties; the duties of beneficiaries' 
subordinates; the nature of the businesses; and other factors potentially affecting beneficiaries' duties 
and business roles. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.4(C)(4), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
Contrary to USCIS policy, the Director disregarded the Petitioner's descriptions of the offered job 
when determining the nature of the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed U.S. work. "The actual duties 
themselves reveal the true nature of the employment." Ren, 60 F.4th at 94-95 (quoting Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F.Supp. 1103,1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990)); see 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.4(C)(4) ("When examining the executive or managerial capacity 
of the beneficiary, an officer should look first to the petitioner's description of the job duties.") 
The Director also misinterpreted evidence. The Director questioned the Beneficiary's claimed 
September 2023 U.S. start date in the offered job. The Director found meeting minutes from the 
Colombian subsidiary, contracts signed by the Beneficiary, and copies of media articles that she 
believed showed the Petitioner's U.S. employment of him since 2019. The record, however, does not 
support the Director's interpretation of the evidence. The media articles state that the Beneficiary co­
founded the global organization in 2019. The meeting minutes and contracts also show that he served 
as the organization's "alternate legal representative" since that year. But none of these materials 
indicate that, since 2019, the Petitioner has employed him in the United States. The company 
submitted payroll records showing that the Colombian subsidiary employed him from at least March 
2022 to August 2023. The Petitioner also submitted an employment agreement and payroll records 
2 
showing the company's U.S. employment of him beginning in September 2023. USCIS records do 
not show that, before obtaining a nonimmigrant work visa with the Petitioner, he had any lengthy stays 
in this country. A preponderance of the evidence therefore demonstrates that the Beneficiary did not 
begin working in the United States until September 2023. 
The Director also found that a combined organizational chart of both ent1t1es shows that the 
Beneficiary served the Colombian subsidiary as COO and CPO ( chief product officer) while at the 
same time holding the position of CFO ( chief financial officer) with the U.S. Petitioner. On appeal, 
the Petitioner explains that the organizational chart assigned him the U.S. title CFO because he served 
as the U.S. company's legal representative. But the company states that it never employed him in the 
United States as its CFO. The Petitioner states that the CFO appointment was "a legal formality, as 
the petitioner [was] required to have a formal legal representative" to sign various documents. 
The record supports the Petitioner's explanation. As previously indicated, a preponderance of the 
evidence demonstrates that the company did not begin employing the Beneficiary in the United States 
until September 2023, when he continued in his role as the global organization's COO. Meeting 
minutes and contracts also show that he has served as a legal representative since 2019. The record 
therefore does not establish that the U.S. company ever employed him as CFO. 
The Director also alleged a discrepancy in the Petitioner's number of employees. The combined 
organizational chart assigns only two people- the Beneficiary and the organization's other co-founder 
- to the U.S. petitioning company. The Director notes, however, that copies of the company's federal 
quarterly payroll taxes show that, from the third quarter of 2022 through the second quarter of 2023, 
it consistently employed three people. These records also show that, during the third and fourth 
quarters of 2023 and the first quarter of 2024, the Petitioner had, respectively, eight, nine, and ten 
employees. 
USCIS, however, must focus on the evidence at the time of the petition's filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(1) (requiring a petitioner to demonstrate eligibility "at the time of filing the benefit 
request"). In its RFE response, the Petitioner dated the combined organizational chart to 2022, before 
this petition's filing in March 2024. Thus, the number of employees listed on the combined 
organizational chart does not reflect the Petitioner's staffing or eligibility at the time of the petition's 
filing. 
In determining the nature of the Beneficiary's foreign employment, the Director found that the 
Beneficiary did not spend all his time working in Colombia as evidence showed he has served as a 
member of the Petitioner's board of directors since 2019. Board of director's positions, however, are 
generally part-time. See Estate ofAlvarez v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 598 F.Supp.3d 301, 323 (D. Md. 
2022) (stating that "many members ofcorporate Boards of Directors" work full-time for other entities). 
Thus, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's position on the Petitioner's board of directors 
prevented his full-time employment as COO in Colombia. 
Because the Director did not examine the Beneficiary's job duties and misinterpreted evidence, we 
will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter. On remand, the Director should 
reconsider the claimed executive nature of the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed U.S. work as COO. 
The Director should examine the job's duties and consider whether they demonstrate that the 
3 
Beneficiary primarily worked and would work in an executive capacity. The Director should also 
carefully consider other applicable evidence in determining the nature of the Beneficiary's past and 
proposed employment. The record does not establish that, at the time of the petition's filing, the 
Petitioner had sufficient staffing to relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational duties. The 
Director therefore should ask the Petitioner to submit information about the positions and job duties 
of its employees that the Beneficiary did not directly supervise at the time of the petition's filing. 
If supported by the record, the Director may also deny the petition on any other potential grounds. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4