remanded EB-1C Case: Logistics And Freight Forwarding

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 29, 2024 In Re: 29244189 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a global logistics and freight forwarding company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its executive vice president under the first preference immigrant classification for 
multinational managers or executives. See section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 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, and 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa'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 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. 
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 was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year 
during the relevant three-year period, 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). 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. 1 The 
Director's decision briefly discusses two letters submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE) 
and concludes that the job descriptions provided were too "general and vague" to establish that the 
Beneficiary's former position in the Netherlands and the offered U.S. position satisfy the definition of 
"managerial capacity" at section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits supplemental evidence and a brief from counsel with additional 
details regarding the Beneficiary's current U.S.-based duties and the duties he employed abroad prior 
to his transfer to the United States in L-lA nonimmigrant status. The Petitioner maintains that the 
Beneficiary is eligible to be classified as a multinational manager and contends the Director did not 
review and consider all relevant evidence in the record. 
While we do not agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the record as presently constituted 
establishes eligibility for the benefit sought, we conclude that the Director did not provide the 
Petitioner with adequate notice of evidentiary deficiencies that are material to the issues on appeal, 
particularly relating to the U.S. and foreign companies' staffing and organizational structure. 
Further, because the Director's analysis was limited to a discussion of the Beneficiary's job duties 
alone, we agree that the denial was not based on a review of all relevant evidence. Beyond the required 
description of the job duties, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) considers the totality 
of the evidence when examining whether a beneficiary has been and would be employed in a 
managerial capacity. This review should include evidence relating to the company's organizational 
structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to 
relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other 
factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
The Director's decision, because it was based solely on a limited review of the Beneficiary's job duties, 
does not reflect consideration of these factors. 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 ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must folly explain the 
reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the 
1 The Petitioner did not claim that the Beneficiary has been or would be employed in an executive capacity as defined at 
section 101 ( a)( 44 )(B) of the Act. 
2 
determination on appeal). Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the 
matter for farther review and entry of a new decision consistent with the following discussion. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment, we note that there are inconsistencies 
and evidentiary deficiencies in the record that would need to be resolved by the Petitioner before 
USCIS could conclude that the offered position is in a managerial capacity. 
The Petitioner indicated on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, that it was 
established in 2003 and operates a global logistics and freight forwarding company with seven 
employees and $1.2 million in gross annual income. In a supporting letter dated February 2, 2021, 
the Petitioner stated that it was incorporated in 2015 and is a successor to ~----------~ Inc., a Florida corporation established in 1999. In the letter, the Petitioner stated that it "employs 18 
people directly." A letter submitted in response to the Director's RFE in February 2023 includes the 
same information. However, the record as presently constituted does not include any documentary 
evidence of payments made to employees that could resolve the inconsistencies in the company's 
stated number of employees and corroborate the company's actual staffing levels from the date of 
filing through adjudication. 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included an organizational chart claimed to depict the Beneficiary's 
current U.S. position as its executive vice president. However, the chart is undated and is labeled 
~--------~ Given the Petitioner's assertion that it is a successor to this company, we 
cannot determine whether this chart reflects the Petitioner's staffing and structure at the time of filing, 
or whether it depicts the staffing of the claimed predecessor company at some earlier date. The chart 
indicates that the Beneficiary reports to the company's directors, and oversees a general manager and 
vice president, as well as an exports manager, a sales development manager, an accounting manager, 
and an operations manager. Finally, the chart identifies lower-level staff including an administration 
assistant, two operations and warehousing employees, a truck driver, and a special accounts employee, 
for a total of 12 named employees, including the Beneficiary. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a very different U.S. organizational chart 
which shows the Beneficiary reporting to its CEO and holding three concurrent positions as executive 
vice president, I I office branch manager, and I I office branch manager. The chart 
indicates that the Beneficiary, as executive vice president, supervises thel loffice branch manager, 
a I I office branch manager, a U.S. director of sales and marketing, and a finance department 
manager, who are identified by name. 2 The chart also identifies an operations team at each branch office, 
two warehouse teams, a sales team, a quoting team, a finance team, a human resources team, and an 
information technology team, but no additional employees are identified by name and the company's 
overall staffing levels cannot be determined. We note that none of the submitted position descriptions 
indicate that the Beneficiary's U.S. employment would include responsibilities as a branch office 
manager, or state how much time he would allocate to managing these offices. 
2 Three of these individuals were also included in the initial U.S. organizational chart, but with different job titles. The 
individual identified as the c=]office branch manager was identified as "general manager" on the previous chaii; the 
~office branch manager was previously depicted as "export manager"; and the finance department manager was 
depicted as the "administration assistant" on the chart submitted at the time of filing. 
3 
Based on the inconsistencies and evidentiary deficiencies described above, the record as presently 
constituted does not clearly depict the Beneficiary's placement in the Petitioner's hierarchy as of the 
date of filing and through adjudication, the overall structure of the company, and the number and types 
of employees he would supervise in his role as executive vice president. Further, if he will in fact be 
concurrently employed as a branch office manager, the record lacks any description of the duties he 
would perform in this capacity and the amount of time he would spend on those duties. 
The record contains similar inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's foreign employment and his 
placement in the foreign entity's hierarchy. The Petitioner submitted an undated organizational chart 
for the foreign entity at the time of filing, but the chart does not include the Beneficiary or his claimed 
position of "manager projects." The chart indicates that the foreign entity is headed by two directors, 
who oversee eight departments - general forwarding, NVOCC, reefer, financials, IT, business 
development, supply chain management, and projects-with a total staff of nearly 50 employees. The 
chart identifies one employee in the projects department. Therefore, this chart did not support the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary, in his role as manager projects, led a team of project managers, 
an HS&E manager, project coordinators, and freight specialists. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a different undated organizational chart intended to depict 
Beneficiary's placement within the foreign entity's hierarchy. The chart indicates that the Beneficiary, 
as manager projects, reported to the president/CEO of the foreign entity and directly supervised a 
projects manager, a senior projects manager/chartering manager, and an HS&E manager. The next 
tier of the organizational chart depicts four project coordinators and a customs coordinator, while the 
lower tier of the chart includes accounting, auditing, documentation, and customs support staff, for a 
total of 21 employees reporting directly or indirectly to the Beneficiary. Many of the employees 
identified by name in the new chart appeared in the chart submitted at the time of filing, but not in the 
same positions. 
The Petitioner will need to resolve the inconsistencies addressed above with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other 
evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
As the matter will be remanded, the Director should review the evidence of record, including the 
Petitioner's appeal, and may request additional evidence related to the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. 
assignment, including evidence to corroborate the Petitioner's claimed staffing levels and its 
employment of the personnel who would directly and indirectly report to the Beneficiary, both at the 
time of filing and through adjudication. Similarly, additional evidence will be needed to corroborate 
the staffing and structure of the foreign entity for the period preceding the Beneficiary's transfer to the 
United States in 2015. The Petitioner should also be provided an opportunity to address the 
inconsistencies addressed above. Any evidence the Petitioner submits must establish eligibility from 
the date of filing through adjudication of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Considering the deficiencies noted above, many of which were not addressed in the Director's 
decision, we find it appropriate to remand the matter to the Director to reevaluate the submitted 
4 
evidence and determine whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and would be employed in the 
United States, in a managerial capacity. The Director should request additional evidence pertaining 
to the Beneficiary's U.S. and foreign employment and any other relevant evidence deemed warranted, 
and allow the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity to respond, prior to 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. 
5