remanded EB-1C Case: Food Service

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 20, 2025 In Re: 37008901 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a restaurant franchisor and seller of prepackaged foods, seeks to permanently employ 
the Beneficiary as its head quality assurance manager 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 a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and will be employed in the United States, in a 
primarily managerial capacity. The Director also concluded that the Petitioner had willfully 
misrepresented material facts in the petition. The Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, which the 
Director dismissed, stating that the filing did not meet the applicable requirements . The matter is now 
before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa '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. 
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. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The Director denied the petition in July 2023, concluding that the Petitioner had not provided enough 
details about the Beneficiary's past duties abroad and his intended duties in the United States to 
establish that the Beneficiary has been and will be "primarily engaged in managerial duties, as required 
for [the immigrant] classification." 
The Director also concluded: "it appears that the petitioner misrepresented the positions held at the 
petitioner and the actual duties done by the beneficiary." 
On motion from that decision, the Petitioner submitted a 15-page brief and copies of several previously 
submitted documents. 
Dismissing the motion in July 2024, the Director stated: "The evidence submitted with the motion to 
reconsider does not establish that the requirements for filing a motion to reconsider have been met. 
The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary qualifies for this classification with all of the 
submitted evidence based on the preponderance of evidence standard." 
The Petitioner has appealed the dismissal of the motion, asserting that the Director "did not address 
any of the arguments in the motion nor cite any specific evidence in this case," and did not explain 
how the motion was deficient. We agree with the Petitioner that the Director's summary statement 
does not adequately explain how the Petitioner's motion did not meet the applicable requirements. 
Therefore, the Petitioner did not have a sufficient opportunity to contest or rebut the Director's 
conclusions on appeal. 
For the reasons explained above, we will remand the matter for a new decision on the Petitioner's 
motion to reconsider. If the Director still determines that the Petitioner has not met the requirements 
for such a motion, then the Director must explain specifically how the motion filing was deficient. A 
summary statement that the Petitioner has not met the requirements cannot suffice. 
Also, while the underlying July 2023 denial notice is not before us on appeal, we nevertheless observe 
that the Director provided minimal information to explain the finding of willful misrepresentation of 
a material fact. In a May 2023 notice of intent to deny (NOID), and again in the July 2023 denial 
notice, the Director stated: 
By claiming that the beneficiary was working as the Quality Assurance Manager, but 
the beneficiary was actually working at the stores and performing daily functions for 
the petitioning company, the petitioner willfully made a false representation, and it is 
material to whether the beneficiary is eligible for the requested benefit. 
This allegation, presented without further context or details, does not appear to be sufficient to warrant 
a finding of willful misrepresentation. Neither the NOID nor the denial notice provided any more 
information to explain why the Director concluded that the Petitioner knowingly provided false 
information about the Beneficiary's activities. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i) requires 
the Director to advise the Petitioner of derogatory information, and the Director does not appear to 
have sufficiently complied with this requirement. The Director must provide enough information to 
permit the Petitioner to attempt a rebuttal. See Smith v. Garland, 103 F.4th 1244, 1255 (7th Cir. 2024), 
cert. denied, No. 24-547, 2025 WL 76486 (U.S. Jan. 13, 2025), citing Ogbolwnani v. Napolitano, 557 
F.3d 729, 735 (7th Cir. 2009) and Ghaly v. I.NS., 48 F.3d 1426, 1434-35 (7th Cir. 1995). 
2 
Therefore, the Director must provide more information, both to allow the Petitioner an opportunity for 
rebuttal and to explain why the evidence and information support a finding of willful misrepresentation 
of a material fact. 
We will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for a new decision, in order for the 
Director to: (1) more fully review the motion to reconsider and, if the motion is again dismissed, to 
explain the specific reasons for dismissal; and (2) provide the Petitioner with more information 
explaining the finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3