remanded EB-1C Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-1- LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 26, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, which describes itself as a management consulting business, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its "President and CEO" under the tirst preference immigrant 
classification for multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(1)(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 revoked approval of the petition, concluding that the 
Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the Petitioner has been doing business and that it has 
been employing the Beneficiary in the United States in an executive capacity. The Director found 
that state wage reports obtained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) contradicted 
the uncorroborated pay stubs, IRS Form W-2 statements, and tax returns that the Petitioner 
submitted. The Director pointed out that the wage reports served as reliable evidence that the 
Petitioner paid no wages to employees from its inception in 2012 to the present. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the revocation, arguing that it was not afforded "a meaningful 
opportunity to respond" because the Director neglected to acknowledge or address the issuance of 
the first of two notices of intent to revoke (NOIR) and the Petitioner's response to it. The Petitioner 
further contends that the second NOIR did not allow sufficient time in which it could obtain and 
submit the documents that the Director requested to address the grounds for the intended revocation. 
The Petitioner also disputes the Director's tinding that it did not pay wages to employees from 
.January 2012, when the Petitioner was established, through October 2014, when this petition was 
tiled. 
Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for a new 
decision. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa available to a beneficiary who, in the three 
years preceding the tiling of the petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one 
Maf/er of B-1- UC 
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. 
A United States employer may file a Fonn 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a 
beneficiary under section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager, The petition 
must include a statement from an authorized oftlcial of the petitioning United States employer which 
demonstrates that the beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity tor at 
least one year in the three years preceding the tiling of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to 
work in the United States lor the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate crfthe foreign employer, and 
that the prospective U.S. employer has been doing business for at least one year, See 8 CFR. 
§ 204.5G)(3). 
In addition, with regard to the revocation of a previously approved petition, section 205 of the Act, 
8 U,S.C § 1155, states: 'The Attorney General may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and 
sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204'' However, 
as noted above, the Director must first issue a NOIR in order to allow the Petitioner the opportunity 
to otTer evidence in opposition to the grounds alleged for the revocation. See 8 C.F,R. § 205.2(b). 
1L BASIS FOR REMAND 
We agree with the Petitioner that the Director did not acknowledge the issuance of the October 
NOIR or assess the Petitioner's response thereto. Although it appears that the October 2015 NOIR 
did not fully and accurately convey the reasons for the intended revocation, the Director should have 
acknowledged the Petitioner's response and provided an explanation of its findings. As the Director 
issued a subsequent NOIR in November 2016 without acknowledging that a NOIR had been 
previously issued, the Petitioner was not adequately informed of the factors that prompted the 
issuance of a second NOIR. In order to effectively provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to 
rebut the grounds for revocation, the Petitioner must be fully informed of all factors that contributed 
to the Director's decision. In the present matter, it is unclear what role, if any, the Petitioner's 
response to the October 2015 NOIR had in the decision to revoke approval of the petition. We also 
find that the Petitioner may not have had sufficient time in which to provide certified tax returns that 
were requested in the second NOIR. In light of the deficiencies cited herein, we tinct that withdrawal 
of the Director's decision is warranted. 
Notwithstanding our decision to withdraw the Director's decision, we cannot conclude that: (I) the 
Petitioner has been doing business since the one year prior to tiling this petition; (2) the Petitioner. 
has employed the Beneficiary in an executive capacity, since approval of the petition, as claimed; 
and (3) the Beneficiary was employed abroad by the foreign subsidiary for at least one year during 
the statutorily relevant three-year time period. 
With regard to the first ground, we note that the record contains two management agreements and 
multiple service contracts, which name the Petitioner as a provider of various services. However, 
the record does not contain corresponding bank statements or other corroborating evidence to show 
2 
Matter of B-1- LLC 
that the Petitioner actually provided and received compensation' for the services described In the 
various contracts. 
The record also lacks sufficient evidence to show that the Peti.tioner has employed the Beneficiary in 
an executive capacity since the petition's approval. As the Director correctly noted, the Petitioner 
must establish that it has the organizational complexity to relieve the Beneficiary from having to 
primarily perform the underlying tasks that are associated with services it offers to its alleged clients. 
Although the Petitioner provided some evidence to support its claims, the Director informed the 
Petitioner in the November 2016 NOIR and final notice of revocation that the internally generated 
pay stubs and uncertified Form W-2s and tax returns it submitted were not sufficient to resolve the 
inconsistencies between those documents and the state wage reports, which show that the Petitioner 
did not pay wages to any employees since the date of its inception. We note that only independent, 
objective evidence is sufficient to resolve the inconsistencies in the record. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (B!A 1988). Thus, any documents that the Petitioner itself generated that cannot 
be corroborated by an independent source would not be sufficient to refute the information contained 
in state wage reports that were obtained by USC IS. 
In addition, USC!S recently conducted an overseas investigation. The findings indicate that the 
Petitioner may be ineligible based on a third ground that was not previously cited. More 
speeitieally, the overseas investigation revealed additional adverse information, which leads us to 
believe that the Petitioner may have misrepresented critical information about the Beneficiary's · 
employment abroad and that the Beneficiary may not have met the foreign employment requirement 
as previously claimed. As the overseas investigation was conducted after the revocation decision 
was issued, the Director did not have the opportunity to evaluate the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment claim within the scope of this new set of facts. 
Lastly, we note that failure to resolve the inconsistencies described above may, in addition to the 
revocation, warrant a finding of willful misrepresentation. See section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Although the Petitioner did not submit sufticient evidence to overcome the revocation, the Director's 
decision did not adequately analyze the facts of the matter and apply the law. Accordingly, we 
hereby withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter tor further consideration and entry 
of a new decision that is consistent with the above analysis. Prior to issuing a final decision, the 
Director shall allow the Petitioner a reasonable amount of time in which to submit any evidence 
deemed warranted to resolve the discrepancies described above. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded tor further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter of B-1- LLC, !D# 477736 (AAO Apr. 26, 20!8) 
3