remanded EB-1C Case: Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24227614 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB . 16, 2023 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner , a real estate company , seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its "managing 
director " under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executive s or managers . 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C) , 8 U.S .C. § l 153(b)(l)(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 that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner 's eligibility. The Director questioned whether the Petitioner is a multinational 
entity doing business in the United States and at least one other country and concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the 
United States in a managerial or executive capacity . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 conclude that the Director did not offer a complete and accurate analysis of the submitted evidence. 
We will therefore 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 in order 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. 
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(j)(3). 
II. BASIS FOR REMAND 
As previously indicated, the Director's decision did not offer a complete analysis nor did it adequately 
explain the deficiencies in the evidence. 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). We 
would also note that the decision contained errors, and we will remand in part for the record to be 
accurately reflected. 
First, the Director raised the issue of whether the Petitioner is a multinational entity, noting that 
although the Petitioner provided the foreign entity's business license and balance sheets, such 
documents do not establish that the foreign entity is doing business. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) (for 
definitions of the terms multinational and doing business). 1 The Director also raised the issue of 
whether the Petitioner itself is currentlff doing business, pointing out that the Petitioner provided 2019 
Form W-2 statements for employees of I an entity whose name and employer identification 
number do not match the Petitioner's. However, there is no evidence that the Director took notice of 
the certificate of amendment that the Petitioner submitted at the time of filing showing that it changed 
its name froml I in December 2019. Further, aside from noting that additional evidence 
was requested to establish that the Petitioner is a multinational entity doing business in the United 
States and abroad, the Director reached no conclusion on either issue. 
Next, the Director discussed the Beneficiary's proposed position under the section heading "Hybrid: 
Executive or Manager- United States." 2 The Director reiterated the Beneficiary's proposed job duty 
breakdown and the initial job offer; the latter states that the Beneficiary would be employed in an 
executive position. The Director issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) because the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate that the Beneficiary will be employed "as a multinational managerial executive." 3 
The Director's use of the phrase "multinational managerial executive" is confusing, and does not 
clearly distinguish the regulatory provisions specific to either managerial or executive capacity, 
whichassign separate criteria to each term. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). And even though the Petitioner 
claimed that the Beneficiary would assume an executive position in his proposed employment, the 
Director did not assess that claim; instead, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary would not 
1 The Director stated that the NOID was issued on "September July 22, 2020," thereby failing to clearly state when the 
NOID was issued. The Director also pointed out that the translated business license and balance sheets did not meet 
regulatory requirements because they were not accompanied by a translator's certification attesting to the completeness 
and accuracy of the documents and the translator's competency to translate from the foreign language into English. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
2 A petitioner claiming that the beneficiary's position will consist of a mixture of managerial and executive duties will not 
meet its burden of proof unless it has demonstrated that the beneficiary will primarily engage in either managerial or 
executive capacity duties. See section IOl(a)(44)(A)-(B) of the Act. 
3 We note that the NOTD incorrectly stated that the Petitioner "claims the foreign entity in Mexico employed the 
[B]eneficiary in a Managerial Executive capacity." The record shows that the foreign entity is based in the United Arab 
Emirates and there is no evidence that the Petitioner claimed the foreign entity is based in Mexico. The Petitioner also did 
not claim that the Beneficiary was employed "in a Managerial Executive capacity," but rather claimed that the employment 
abroad was in a managerial capacity. 
2 
primarily perform "managerial duties" and stated that his proposed position does not meet "the 
statutory definitions [sic] of managerial capacity." Likewise, the Director's reference to the lack of 
clarity as to the Beneficiary's "overall purpose of the activity or function" is also confusing, as the 
Petitioner made no claim that the Beneficiary would manage an activity or function. 
In the final portion of the discussion concerning the Beneficiary's U.S. employment, the Director 
referred to the Beneficiary's 2015 nonimmigrant visa (NIV) application and the brief description of 
job duties he provided in that application. The Director focused on the portion of the description where 
the Beneficiary stated that he was "temporarily positioned as general manager of [the foreign entity] 
pending return to managing director of ________ Texas .... " The Director interpreted 
this statement as the Beneficiary's attestation "that he was only holding a temporarily [sic] position in 
[the] U.S. pending the return of [the] real managing director." In other words, it appears the Director 
misinterpreted the Beneficiary's claim to mean that his proposed position was temporary, when in fact 
the Beneficiary claimed that his position abroad was temporary. Accordingly, in concluding that the 
evidence that was "neither probative nor credible," the Director relied on a deficient analysis and 
incorrect interpretation of a statement that the Beneficiary provided in a previously filed NIV 
application. 
Finally, the Director discussed the Beneficiary's foreign employment. In doing so, the Director 
reiterated a portion of the Beneficiary's foreign job description, which states that the Beneficiary 
directly and indirectly supervised professionals and managers, occupied a senior-level position within 
the organization, and reported directly to the chief executive officer. Although the job description also 
included a job duty breakdown with percentages of time, the Director did not acknowledge or discuss 
the breakdown. As such, it is unclear whether the Director considered all relevant evidence prior to 
concluding that the job description consisted of "broad responsibilities" and lacked "specific 
information to ascertain the duties and tasks performed." The Director also determined that the foreign 
entity's organizational chart depicted a "disproportionate manager-employee workforce," explaining 
that "[e]very individual depicted on the organizational chart was a manager." However, aside from 
the managerial position titles, the organizational chart in question also lists a number of non­
managerial position titles, such as "accounting" and "marketing and public relations," which are 
depicted at the organizational tier directly subordinate to the Beneficiary, as well as the following 
other non-managerial position titles that are depicted at the two lower organizational tiers: 
Construction crew, a senior architect, a senior engineer, two electrician/plumbers, quality control, an 
accountant, a public relations officer, a quality control officer, and three quality control positions. 
Based on the foregoing, it is not clear that the record was reviewed in its entirety and analyzed 
sufficiently. Notwithstanding the lack of proper analysis, however, the record lacks sufficient 
evidence to establish: (1) that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity; (2) that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity; (3) that the Petitioner has the ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage; and (4) that 
the Petitioner and the foreign entity were doing business as of March 2020 when this petition was 
filed. Regarding the issue of the Petitioner doing business, we note that a recent search of the corporate 
database in Texas, where the Petitioner was incorporated, shows the Petitioner's status as "forfeited." 
See https://mycpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/coaSearchBtn. This new information leads us to question 
whether the Petitioner conducts business and is able to extend a bona fide job offer. In sum, the record 
as presently constituted does not establish that the Petitioner is eligible for the benefit sought. 
3 
Regardless, because the Director's decision did not adequately analyze the facts of the matter and 
clearly apply the regulatory standards, we will remand the matter for entry of a new decision. The 
Director should request any additional evidence warranted and allow the Petitioner to submit such 
evidence within a reasonable period of time. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4