remanded EB-1C Case: It Consulting

(b)(6)
DATE: 
JAN 2 4 2014 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Ben eficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizen ship and Immigr ation Service 
Office of Admini s1rmive Appeals 
20 Massachus etts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pur suant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1 )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclos ed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. This is a non­
precedent decision . The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy 
through non-preced ent decisions. 
Thank you, 
~) ' 
)'I~ 
~Ron~~ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
director's decision will be withdrawn and the matter will be remanded for further action and entry of 
a new decision. 
The petitioner, a Texas corporation, operates an ECM/IT engineering consulting firm. It claims to 
have a qualifying relationship with Digit 5 S.A. de C.V., located in Mexico. The petitioner seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as its Vice President of Operations. Accordingly , the petitioner endeavors 
to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b )(l)(C) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that it will 
employ the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that it has a 
qualifying relation ship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. In denying the petition , the director 
advised the petitioner as follows: "Your record holds derogatory information you may not have 
known about which US CIS will consider in making a decision on your petition." The director 
discussed the information and evidence that he deemed to be derogatory, stated that the credibility 
of the petitioner's documentation was in question, and reached the following conclusion: 
The evidence on file submitted by the petitioner failed to overcome the above 
information[.] USCIS hereby denies the petition with a finding of fraud or 
misrepresentation . Moreover, the petitioner's withdrawal of the instant petition is not 
accompanied by evidence to rebut the derogatory information outlined above. 1 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner disputes "any and all conclusory findings by USCIS indicating 
findings of fraud." 
Upon review of the record and the director's decision, the director's introduction of derogatory 
information unknown to the petitioner in the notice of decision was contrary to regulatory 
requirements. Accordingly , the decision will be withdrawn and the matter will be remanded to the 
service center for fmther action and entry of a new decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6) provides: 
(i) Derogatory information unknown to petitioner or applicant. If the decision 
will be adverse to the applicant or petitioner and is based on derogatory 
information considered by the Service and of which the applicant or petitioner 
is unaware , he/she shall be advised of the fact and offered an opportunity to 
rebut the information and present information on his/her own behalf before 
the decision is rendered, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(l6)(ii),(iii) and 
1 
The record reflects that the petitioner in this matter did not request that the petition be withdrawn . 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(iv) of this section. Any explanation, rebuttal or information presented by or 
in behalf of the applicant or petitioner shall be included in the record of 
proceeding . 
The petitioner filed the Form l-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on January 20, 2011. The 
director issued a reque st for evidence on June 27, 2011, and petitioner responded on August 1, 2011 . 
The director did not issue a second notice advising the petitioner of derogatory information of which 
it was not aware. Instead, the director informed the petitioner of the derogatory information which 
formed the basis of the denial and the finding of fraud or misrepresentation in the notice of decision 
dated March 11, 2013. 
As the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to review and rebut the derogatory information 
prior to the issuance of the decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )( 16), the decision dated 
March 11, 2013 was improperly rendered and is hereby withdrawn . 
The matter will be remanded to the director, who is instructed to issue a notice of intent to deny in 
which the petitioner shall be informed of any and all derogatory information on which USCIS may 
rely to deny the petition or to issue a finding of fraud or material misrepresentation. The petitioner 
shall be granted an opportunity in which to rebut the information and/or submit additional evidence 
on its own behalf before a new decision is rendered. 
ORDER: The director' s decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded to the director 
for the purpo ses of issuing a notice of intent to deny advising the petitioner of 
the derogatory information and for the entry of a new decision , which , if 
adverse , shall be certified to the AAO.