remanded EB-1C Case: Food Service

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 17, 2025 In Re: 36432847 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
When U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denies or dismisses a benefit request, the 
Agency must state the specific reasons for the adverse decision. A detailed decision ensures that a 
petitioner has a fair opportunity to appeal a motion dismissal and that we can meaningfully review the 
decision. 
Here, the Director of the Texas Service Center did not sufficiently explain her reasons for dismissing 
the Petitioner's motion to reconsider. We will therefore withdraw the decision and remand the matter 
for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner, an operator of restaurants and sweets shops, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
quality assurance manager. The company requests his classification under the employment-based, 
first-preference (EB-1) immigrant visa category as a "multinational manager." See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(C). This category allows 
multinational organizations to sponsor noncitizens to permanently work for the organizations in the 
United States in managerial or executive capacities. Id. 
To qualify as a multinational manager or executive, a noncitizen, in the three years before their entry 
into the United States as a nonimmigrant, must have worked abroad for at least one year in a 
managerial or executive capacity. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B). Also, 
their U.S. petitioner must intend to employ them in a managerial or executive capacity and be the same 
entity that employed them abroad, or a subsidiary or affiliate of their foreign employer. Section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C). 
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Beneficiary, an Indian native and citizen, entered the United States in L-IA nonimmigrant visa 
status in March 2018. See section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(15)(L). The status, 
which USCIS extended for about five years, allowed the Petitioner to temporarily employ him in the 
offered position of quality assurance manager. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(12)(i) (allowing extension of 
L-1 A status for up to seven years). 
In December 2020, while the Beneficiary remained in L-1 A nonimmigrant status with the Petitioner 
in the United States, the company filed this immigrant petition. The Director approved the petition 
the same month. In October 2023, however, the Director mailed a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) 
the petition's approval. See section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155; 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(a). 
The NOIR alleged insufficient evidence of the Petitioner's required intent to employ the Beneficiary 
in the United States in the claimed managerial capacity or his required work abroad in the same 
claimed capacity. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (stating that a petition's 
erroneous denial may justify its revocation). The NOIR also alleged that the company and the 
Beneficiary willfully misrepresented his U.S. current position and duties. 
The Petitioner timely responded to the NOIR, contesting the alleged revocation grounds. The Director, 
however, revoked the petition's approval on both grounds in April 2024. The following month, the 
company filed a motion to reconsider the revocation. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). In July 2024, the 
Director dismissed the motion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends, in part, that the Director's decision does not adequately explain 
the reasons for the motion's denial, thereby depriving the company of a fair chance to appeal the 
decision. The company 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). We 
review questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 53 7, 53 7 n.2 (AAO 
2015). 
III. ANALYSIS 
A motion decision must identify and fully explain its reasoning. Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786, 
787-88 (BIA 1994). Otherwise, such a decision deprives a party of a fair opportunity to contest the 
opinion on appeal and us of the ability to meaningfully review the decision. Id.; see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(a)(l)(i) (requiring USCIS, in the context of application and petition denials, to "explain in 
writing the specific reasons for denial"). 
The Director's written decision provides two reasons for dismissing the Petitioner's motion to 
reconsider. First, the decision states: "The evidence submitted with the motion to reconsider does not 
establish that the requirements for filing a motion to reconsider have been met." The decision notes 
that all motions must include "a statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision 
has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or 
result of the proceeding." See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(C). The decision also notes that motions to 
reconsider must establish that USCIS' prior decision misapplied law or Agency policy based on the 
record at the time of the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The Director's decision, however, does 
not indicate which motion requirement(s) were purportedly unmet or explain why they were 
unsatisfied. Thus, the decision does not fully explain its reasoning. See Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 
at 787-88. 
2 
The Director's decision also states: "The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary qualifies for 
this classification with all of the submitted evidence based on the preponderance of the evidence 
standard." As with the other dismissal ground, the decision does not detail the specific reasons for 
this adverse determination. The decision does not discuss evidence or the classification's 
requirements. Nor does it explain why the Petitioner's evidence fell short of the requirements. In the 
motion, the Petitioner contended that the Director disregarded evidence and arguments, misconstrued 
exhibits, and based the revocation, in part, on information unstated in the NOIR. See Matter ofArias, 
19 I&N Dec. 568, 570 (BIA 1988) (finding that a revocation can only be grounded on, and a petitioner 
need only respond to, the factual allegations in a NOIR). The Director's motion decision, however, 
does not address those arguments. 
The Director's decision does not fully explain its reasons for dismissing the Petitioner's motion to 
reconsider. We will therefore withdraw the decision and remand the matter. 
On remand, the Director should reconsider the Petitioner's motion and enter a new decision. The new 
decision, if a dismissal, should address the company's arguments on motion and specify the reasons 
for the decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3