remanded EB-1C Case: Professional Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19854159 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 22, 2022 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a global professional services firm, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
"Senior Manager" under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
managers . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign 
employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary's proposed employment would be in a managerial capacity . 
The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider which was granted by the 
Director; however, the Director determined that the previous denial would remain undisturbed. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 remand the matter to the 
Director for further consideration and entry of a new decision . 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 in order to continue to render managerial or executive 
services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker , must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition, 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(i)(3) . 
II. BASIS FOR REMAND 
Upon review, we conclude that the Director did not sufficiently consider the evidence submitted by 
the Petitioner on motion or provide adequate analysis as to how this evidence was insufficient to 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's managerial capacity in the United States. For instance, the Director 
listed the evidence submitted by the Petitioner specific to the Beneficiary's asserted employment in a 
managerial capacity, but did not provide analysis of this evidence despite reopening the matter. 
Preliminarily, we note that the Director's decision contains numerous conflicting statements and 
discrepancies. For example, while the Director concluded that the underlying decision denying the 
petition would remain undisturbed, the Director also stated "Your Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 
I-290B) has been approved," and "the petitioner has established that the decision was incorrect based 
on the evidence when Form 1-140 was initially denied." Further, although the Director stated that the 
underlying decision denying the petition was erroneous, the Director provided no further analysis or 
discussion with regard to this statement and contradictorily concluded that the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for the required benefit. 
In addition, while the Director denied the underlying petition based on a determination that the 
Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment would not be primarily managerial, the Director's decision 
on motion incorrectly stated that the underlying petition was denied "because the petitioner's [sic] did 
not provide sufficient evidence to show that the beneficiary's offered position is in a managerial 
capacity and the beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity abroad." (Emphasis added). On 
appeal, the Petitioner points out that this second basis for denial was not previously raised, and argues 
that the underlying decision denying the petition implicitly found that the Beneficiary's foreign 
position was in a qualifying capacity. 
In the motion decision, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of a new statement of 
duties, educational credentials for subordinate employees, and an organizational chart. After briefly 
quoting a section of the statement of duties, the Director concluded that "the evidence submitted does 
not establish that the beneficiary manages a component of the organization as stipulated in the 
petitioner's statement. Rather the statement shows that the beneficiary manages an organization's 
client project." No further analysis or discussion of the submitted evidence was provided. 
On appeal, the Petitioner takes issue with the Director's "cursory" conclusion, and argues that the 
Director "improvidently denied the recently filed motion on the basis of its faulty and unreasonable 
interpretation of the documentation in the record." The Petitioner asserts that it provided sufficient 
details regarding the Beneficiary's U.S. position, specifically pointing out numerous documents and 
their contents that were not reviewed or considered by the Director on motion, and argues that the 
Director's determination was based on "unsupported conclusions." 
Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the Director's motion decision contains 
insufficient reasoning and analysis to support its conclusion. The record reflects that the Petitioner 
provided a 22-page brief in support of its combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, along 
with new and previously submitted documentary evidence describing the Beneficiary's current U.S. 
position and previous role abroad. Despite granting both motions, the Director did not reference the 
detailed job descriptions provided in these documents or identify any specific deficiencies with respect 
2 
to the duties described. Instead, the Director broadly referred to the Petitioner's statement of duties 
on motion in support of his adverse conclusion that the U.S. position is not in a managerial capacity. 
Although the Petitioner provided a job duty breakdown pertaining to the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. 
employment, as well as additional details pertaining to his subordinate employees, the Director 
declined to analyze this documentation and make a determination upon the merits of the evidence. 
The Director's decision does not include a full analysis of the evidence the Petitioner submitted in 
support of its claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A). An officer must 
fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order 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). 
The Director's motion decision contains inaccurate findings and did not adequately analyze the facts 
and apply the law. In light of the errors described herein, we find that the Director did not adequately 
explain the reasons for not disturbing the denial of the petition. Id. Therefore, we will withdraw the 
Director's motion decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision. The Director should 
request any additional evidence deemed warranted and allow the Petitioner to submit such evidence 
within a reasonable period of time. The Director may also notify the Petitioner of additional, potential 
grounds of denial if supported by the record. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further proceedings 
consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
3