remanded EB-1C

remanded EB-1C Case: Medical Devices

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Company ๐Ÿ“‚ Medical Devices

Decision Summary

The Director's decision was withdrawn and the matter was remanded because the petitioner submitted new evidence on appeal to establish the qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. The AAO determined that the Director is the appropriate party to first consider this new evidence before a final decision is made.

Criteria Discussed

Qualifying Relationship

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13718186 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 17, 2020 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a developer, manufacturer, and seller of medical connection systems, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary in the position of "Director, Quality" under the first preference 
immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers . Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. ยง 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish, as required, that it had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's former foreign 
employer. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is the parent 
company of the Beneficiary's former foreign employer. The Petitioner indicates that it acquired the 
foreign employer in February 2017 prior to the date the petition was filed in October 2019. It provides 
additional documentary evidence on appeal indicating that it wholly owns the foreign employer, 
including a register of the foreign employer's members, evidence of a name change on the part of the 
foreign employer in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, amongst other additional evidence. 
As our review is limited to the evidence on the record at the time of the Director 's adjudication, the 
Director is the more appropriate party to consider this new evidence and its impact on the Beneficiary's 
eligibility. Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for 
consideration of the new evidence and the entry of a new decision. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Draft your EB-1C petition with AAO precedents

MeritDraft uses real AAO decisions to generate compliant petition arguments tailored to your evidence.

Sign Up Free →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.