remanded EB-1C Case: Renewable Energy

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 20648685 Date : MAY 15, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in biofuel and renewable energy development, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as its president 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. § 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 a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center initially denied the petition for abandonment , citing the 
Petitioner's failure to respond to a notice of intent to deny (NOID) . The Director granted the 
Petitioner's motion to reopen and again denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that ( 1) the Petitioner had the requisite qualifying relationship with a foreign entity; (2) the Beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity; and (3) the Beneficiary 
had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 8 C .F.R. § 103.3. 
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 Workers , 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 noted above, the Director denied the petition on multiple grounds after granting the Petitioner's 
motion to reopen. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision relied on evidence not 
submitted in support of this petition, contained erroneous conclusions of fact that adversely impacted 
the adjudication of the petition, and failed to address relevant evidence submitted in response to the 
NOID. Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner's assertions. 
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 ofM-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). Because the Director's decision does not 
provide a complete analysis of the evidence submitted in support of the instant petition, we will 
withdraw that decision and remand for further review and entry of a new decision, consistent with our 
discussion below. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director relied on evidence not submitted in support of this petition in 
issuing the denial. The Director's decision is based, in part, on documentation submitted in support 
of a prior immigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary by the Petitioner in 2014. The 
instant petition was filed in June 2018. Here, the Director referenced the Petitioner's 2014 website as 
well as an amended federal tax return it filed in 2012, evidence previously submitted in support of the 
prior immigrant visa petition, in determining that it did not have the requisite qualifying relationship 
with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The Petitioner, however, submitted documentation 
pertaining to its ownership structure in support of the instant petition, including its articles of 
organization, operating agreement, and membership certificates. In addition, in its response to the 
NOID, the Petitioner provided an explanation for the perceived discrepancies in the documents from 
its previous filing, while simultaneously maintaining that the Director's reliance on those documents 
was misplaced. The Director's determination that the Petitioner did not meet this eligibility 
requirement appears to have been based on a determination that the record contained unresolved 
inconsistencies from a prior filing. The Director relied primarily on previously submitted documents 
and their discrepancies in concluding that the record did not demonstrate a qualifying relationship. 
However, the Director did not adequately evaluate the documentary evidence submitted in support of 
the current record of proceeding or considering the Petitioner's explanations, submitted in response to 
the NOID, to resolve those discrepancies. On remand, the Director should fully evaluate the evidence 
submitted by the Petitioner in the current proceeding to determine whether it had the requisite 
qualifying relationship with a foreign entity. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director did not properly consider all of the evidence submitted 
and improperly disregarded pieces of relevant documentary evidence submitted in support of the 
instant petition. For example, with regard to the Beneficiary's employment in an executive capacity, 
2 
both abroad and in the U.S., the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not provide an adequate analysis 
of the evidence submitted in response to the NOID and did not explain, for example, why supporting 
documentary evidence submitted in response to the NOID was given little evidentiary weight. The 
Petitioner contends that the Director failed to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard in 
evaluating the evidence of the Beneficiary's employment in the U.S. and abroad, did not address 
evidence submitted in response to the NOID, and ignored the detailed job descriptions submitted and 
improperly concluded that the enumerated duties were not executive in nature. In addition, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director's discussion of the Beneficiary's employment in an executive 
capacity closely mirrors that provided in the NOID despite the Petitioner's submission of additional 
evidence with its NOID response. Given the amount and type of evidence submitted in support of the 
Beneficiary's employment in both the U.S. and abroad, both initially and in response to the NOID, we 
find the Director's brief analysis did not adequately inform the Petitioner of the reasons for concluding 
that the Beneficiary was not employed in a qualifying capacity either in the U.S. or abroad. On 
remand, the Director should fully evaluate the evidence submitted by the Petitioner to determine 
whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity and whether he 
would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed , the Director 's decision is withdrawn . On remand, the Director may issue a 
new request for evidence or notice of intent to deny allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to provide 
additional evidence relevant to the issues discussed above, and any other evidence deemed necessary 
to demonstrate eligibility for the classification sought, before issuing a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3