remanded EB-1C Case: International Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20274568 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 28, 2022 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner is engaged in international trade and seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as 
its President 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. 
§ l l 53(b )(1 )(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign 
employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity . 
After initially approving the petition, the Director of the Texas Service Center revoked the petition's 
approval. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that (1) it had the requisite 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer , (2) the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a qualifying executive capacity for one year in the three years preceding his entry into the 
United States as a nonimmigrant , and (3) the Beneficiary 's proposed U.S. employment would be in an 
executive capacity . The Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, 
which the Director denied concluding that the underlying adverse decision would remain undisturbed. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will remand the matter to the 
Director for further consideration and entry of a new decision . 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 Fonn 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 prospective U.S. employer 
has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3). 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to 
reconsider must establish that the 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). 
II. BASIS FOR REMAND 
The instant petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary was approved by the Director of the Texas 
Service Center on February 15, 2017. The Director later revoked the approval of this petition on July 
31, 2020, following the issuance of a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR). The Director concluded that 
the petition had been approved in error and that the Beneficiary was not eligible for the benefit sought. 
The Petitioner, through counsel, subsequently filed a motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, 
asserting that the Director "disregarded a multitude of pertinent evidence" and "did not provide 
adequate explanation for the adverse decision." The Petitioner submitted new evidence in support of 
the claimed qualifying relationship with the foreign employer, specifically a revised translation of an 
Enterprise Overseas Investment Certificate and evidence demonstrating that it filed amended tax 
returns to properly reflect the company's ownership. The Petitioner also provided arguments 
challenging the Director's determination that the Beneficiary had not been employed abroad, and 
would not be employed in the United States, in a primarily executive capacity. The Director dismissed 
the combined motion, concluding that the Petitioner had not provided new evidence or precedent 
decisions to consider and that it did not establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
in the record at the time of revocation. 
Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the Director did not consider the submission 
of new evidence by the Petitioner on motion. In a letter accompanying the motion, counsel for the 
Petitioner generally noted that the Petitioner had not received a copy of the revocation notice, despite 
submitting a change of address request to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in July 
of 2019. 1 Regardless, the Petitioner, through counsel, filed a timely and lengthy motion addressing 
the reasons why it believed the revocation of the petition's approval was unwarranted, which was not 
addressed by the Director. Instead, the Director's decision focused exclusively on the Petitioner's 
change of address request and the documentation submitted in support of that request, as opposed to 
the new documentary evidence and arguments contained in the nine-page brief accompanying the 
combined motion. The Director determined that the Petitioner provided no evidence to support its 
claim that a change of address request had been submitted to USCIS, and vaguely cited language 
1 In a letter submitted in support of the motion, counsel stated as follows: 
Please note that the Petitioner has not received your Notice of Revocation of the T-140 approval. Please send a 
copy of the Revocation Notice to the Petitioner. On August 1, 2019, its address changed[]. We submitted this 
address change to you on July 22. 2019; a copy of this address change is enclosed in this letter. 
2 
pertammg to required evidence for motions to reopen an application or petition denied due to 
abandonment, which has no application here. 
With the appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and resubmits the evidence previously submitted on 
motion, along with a "position evaluation report" in support of the Beneficiary's claimed executive 
position in the United States and abroad. The Petitioner argues on appeal that the Director erred in 
dismissing the combined motion because the decision did not address its submission of new evidence, 
and asserts that on motion, it "explained the discrepancies listed in the Revocation Notice, submitted 
new evidence, disputed the fact that the [ service center] deviated from common sense and legal 
principles, as well as highlighted the errors made on the part of the [service center]." The Petitioner 
further contends that its arguments and evidence submitted on motion established eligibility for the 
benefit sought. 
Here, the Director's decision did not adequately explain the deficiencies in the evidence submitted on 
motion. 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). Instead, the Director's decision 
focused on an issue not relevant to the basis for the revocation of the petition's approval. 
The Director's motion decision did not adequately analyze the facts and apply the law. In light of the 
errors described herein, we find that the Director did not adequately explain the reasons for not 
disturbing the revocation of the petition's approval. Id. Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's 
motion decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded to the Director for 
the entry of new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3