remanded EB-1C Case: Insurance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24845451 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 14, 2023 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, an insurance agency, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its general 
manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational managers or executives . 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary had been employed abroad, or would be employed in the United States, 
in an executive capacity. 1 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 oJChawathe, 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. 53 7, 53 7 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 petition seeking to classify a beneficiary as a multinational manager or executive 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 
prospective U.S. employer has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(3)(A)-(D). 
1 The Director initially denied the petition on October 2, 2019, concluding that the record did not establish the existence 
of a bona fide employer-employee relationship between the Beneficiary and the Petitioner or between the Beneficiary and 
the Petitioner's foreign affiliate, due to his significant ownership interest in both entities. The Petitioner appealed that 
decision to this office. We withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter to the Director for further 
consideration and entry of a new decision. 
As noted, the Director denied the petition concluding that the record did not establish that the 
Beneficiary had been employed abroad, or would be employed in the United States, in an executive 
capacity, as defined at section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. l 10l(a)(44)(B). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director issued the unfavorable decision without considering 
its response to a request for evidence (RFE) issued in November 2021. In addition, the Petitioner 
contends that the Director erroneously disregarded its consistent claim that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a managerial capacity as defined at section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 
rather than in an executive capacity. 
The record supports the Petitioner's claims. The Director's final decision contains no reference to the 
RFE issued in November 2021 or the additional evidence and explanations the Petitioner submitted in 
response to that RFE. As such, the decision reflects that the Director denied the petition without 
consideration of this material evidence. An officer must explain the specific reasons for denying a 
visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). As the Director did not review all the submitted evidence, the 
decision does not adequately explain the specific reasons for denial, the Petitioner was not provided 
with a fair opportunity to contest the decision, and we cannot conduct a meaningful appellate review. 
See, e.g., 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). 
Further, we agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the Director erred by disregarding its consistent 
claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity based on 
the nature of his day-to-day duties. The Director dismissed the Petitioner's claim as "misplaced" and 
instead applied the definition of executive capacity at section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act in analyzing 
the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment. The Director emphasized that the Beneficiary, who 
serves as the Petitioner's general manager, is also chairman of the company's board of directors, a 
position he holds as a member of the petitioning limited liability company. However, an individual 
need not be deemed an executive under the statutory definition at section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act 
simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the organization as an owner or 
officer of the company. The Petitioner specifically articulated why it sought to classify the Beneficiary 
as a multinational manager and the Director erroneously discounted its claims. 
As the Director's decision does not reflect that it was based on a review of the totality of the 
Petitioner's claims and evidence, we will withdraw the decision and remand the matter to the Director 
for further review and entry of a new decision. On remand, the Director is instructed to review all 
evidence submitted to date, including evidence submitted in response to the Director's RFEs issued in 
2019 and 2021, and the Petitioner's claims on appeal, including its claim that it will employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. 
The Petitioner has the burden to establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit 
have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )( 1 ). In addition to establishing that it met all eligibility requirements at the time of filing in 
December 2017, the Petitioner must demonstrate that it continues to have the ability to employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial capacity, that the foreign and U.S. entities maintain a qualifying 
2 
relationship, and that both entities continue to do business as defined in the regulations. See generally 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3). Additionally, the Petitioner must establish its continuing ability to pay the 
Beneficiary's proffered wage from the date of filing in 2017. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). While the 
Petitioner has submitted updated evidence in response to previous RFEs which the Director has not 
yet considered, the record lacks, for example, recent evidence of the Petitioner's staffing levels and 
organizational structure. As such, the Director may find it necessary to issue a new RFE and should 
allow the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity to respond prior to issuing a new decision. 
For the reasons discussed, the Director's decision is withdrawn. We will remand the matter for further 
consideration and for the Director to adjudicate in the first instance any additional issues that impact 
eligibility for the immigrant classification sought. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3