remanded EB-1C Case: Networking And Telecommunications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18178557 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 02, 2021 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a company engaged in networking and telecommunications, seeks 
to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its chief executive officer 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. § 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
provide: 1) specific details regarding the beneficiary's previous position with the foreign entity, 2) 
infonnation "regarding the company's financials for ability to pay," 3) information specific to "the 
beneficiary'[s] [sic] qualifying relationship with the foreign entity," and 4) information related to 
whether the Petitioner was "doing business" as defined by the regulations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it responded to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) with a 
requested job offer letter including the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. duties. The Petitioner also 
contends that this letter included information relevant to the Beneficiary's foreign employment prior 
to his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant. In addition, the Petitioner states it provided 
evidence in support of the petition specific to its ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage, its 
qualifying relationship with the foreign employer, and whether it was doing business in the United 
States for one year prior to the date the petition was filed. The Petitioner asserts that the Director did 
not review and properly consider this evidence. 
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 withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for further consideration and entry of a new decision. 
The Director did not sufficiently articulate the grounds upon which they denied the petition and 
properly analyze the submitted evidence. For instance, as discussed, the Director indicated that the 
Petitioner did not provide evidence specific to demonstrating the various grounds for eligibility 
discussed above. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3). However, the record reflects that the Petitioner 
did submit evidence relevant to each of these grounds for eligibility. For instance, the Petitioner 
provided foreign duties related to the Beneficiary's former capacity abroad, and although the Director 
appeared to indicate these were not "specific," they did not discuss them in detail or indicate why it 
considered the evidence insufficient. The Petitioner also submitted IRS Forms 1120 U.S. Corporation 
Income Tax Returns and income statements relevant to whether it could pay the Beneficiary's 
proffered wage and whether it was doing business for one year prior to the date of the petition. 
Likewise, the Petitioner submitted corporate documentation relevant to its ownership, and ownership 
of the foreign employer, including a Petitioner stock certificate, a partnership agreement, IRS Forms 
1120 showing evidence of ownership, and a foreign employer corporate document indicating that 
entity's asserted ownership. 1 
However, the Director did not clearly articulate each ground for denial and properly analyze the 
evidence submitted for each ground of eligibility. The Director must fully explain the reasons for 
denying a petition to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an 
opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-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). 
As such, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for entry of a new decision. 
Specifically, the Director must clearly articulate each basis of its denial, analyze each ground for denial 
separately to avoid confusion, and specifically analyze the submitted evidence relevant to each ground 
for denial. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
1 We note that the discussed evidence related to each ground for eligibility is not meant as exhaustive but represents some 
examples of the evidence provided by the Petitioner that was not discussed by the Director in the denial. 
2