remanded EB-1C Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN . 30, 2023 In Re : 27518585 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner , an information technology and software services company , seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as a principal consultant 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 , or would be employed in the United States, in a 
managerial capacity. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 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 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer , and that the pro spective U.S . employer 
has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R . § 204 .5(j)(3) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad or would be employed in the United States, in a managerial capacity as defined at 
section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A). The Director's conclusion was based 
primarily on a determination that the Petitioner "did not address USCIS' questions regarding .. 
discrepancies in the Beneficiary's job duties" that had been raised in a request for evidence (RFE). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was erroneously based on perceived 
unresolved discrepancies between the job descriptions submitted in this matter and the job descriptions 
it provided in support of a second-preference immigrant petition it filed on the Beneficiary's behalf in 
2017, which was accompanied by a labor certification application (Form ETA 9089). The Petitioner 
further contends that the Director failed to address relevant evidence submitted in support of the 
petition and in response to the RFE. Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner's assertions. 
Further, we observe that the RFE issued in this matter did not advise the Petitioner that there were 
discrepancies in the record that must be resolved; the Director only requested that the Petitioner 
provide additional evidence in support of its claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and 
would be employed in the United States, in a managerial capacity. In fact, the Director stated in the 
RFE that the duties stated in the Petitioner's letter dated December 15, 2020 are "in line with the 
information provided in the ETA Form 9089" for the same position. If the Director intended to request 
that the Petitioner address discrepancies in the record, this request was not clearly conveyed in the 
RFE. A review of the Petitioner's response to the RFE demonstrates that it made a good faith effort 
to respond to the issues raised therein by providing additional explanations and documentation in 
support of its claims. As noted by the Petitioner, the decision lacks any analysis of most of the 
evidence submitted with the initial filing and RFE response. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow the Petitioner a fair 
opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-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). Because the Director's decision does not 
provide a complete analysis of the evidence submitted in support of the instant petition, we will 
withdraw that decision and remand for further review and entry of a new decision, consistent with our 
discussion below. 
The Petitioner has offered the Beneficiary permanent employment in the pos1t10n of principal 
consultant, a position he has held since his transfer to the United States in L-lA status in October 
2014. The record reflects that he was similarly employed abroad, with the same job title of principal 
consultant, for more than one year immediately prior to his transfer within the multinational 
organization. 
The Director concluded that there are unresolved discrepancies between the job descriptions submitted 
in support of this petition and those the Petitioner submitted with the 201 7 second preference petition 
filed on the Beneficiary's behalf: and therefore USCIS cannot determine what duties either position 
entails or whether either position meets the definition of managerial capacity at section 101(a)(44)(A) 
2 
of the Act. However, the Director's decision does not address any substantive inconsistencies between 
the position descriptions, nor does the decision evaluate the actual position descriptions at all. The 
Director's conclusory finding that the two versions of the job description for the Beneficiary's former 
and proffered positions are inconsistent did not provide an adequate basis for denial of the petition. 
Further, based on our review, we find the position descriptions prepared in connection with the 2017 
second preference petition to be too generalized to reveal any clear inconsistencies. 
The Petitioner also accurately asserts that the Director improperly disregarded pieces of relevant 
documentary evidence submitted in support of the instant petition. The Director acknowledged that 
the Petitioner submitted "detailed descriptions" of the Beneficiary's former and proposed positions 
but did not evaluate those descriptions or reach a conclusion that they did not establish that the 
Beneficiary had been or would be employed in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner also submitted 
a substantial amount of evidence intended to corroborate the Beneficiary's performance of managerial 
duties in the United States and abroad that is not addressed in the decision. This evidence includes, 
but is not limited to: copies of the Beneficiary's promotion letters; copies of diplomas for his U.S.­
and foreign-based subordinate personnel; performance reviews conducted by the Beneficiary in his 
role as a principal consultant in the U.S. and abroad; detailed organizational charts with duty 
descriptions for the Beneficiary's subordinates; and internal e-mails intended to support the 
Petitioner's claims that the nature of the Beneficiary's work is primarily managerial in nature. 
On remand, the Director should folly evaluate the evidence submitted by the Petitioner to date, 
including the Petitioner's appeal, to determine whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
managerial capacity and whether he would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Director's decision is withdrawn. On remand, the Director may issue a 
new request for evidence allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to provide additional evidence 
relevant to the issues discussed above, and any other evidence deemed necessary to demonstrate 
eligibility for the classification sought, before issuing a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3