remanded EB-1C Case: Restaurant Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24228399 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 31, 2023 
Form I-140 , Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner , which owns three restaurants , seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
general manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(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 denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the United States, 
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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis . 
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 I-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). 
In the portion of the denial notice that discusses the grounds for denial, there is only one sentence that 
clearly relates to the Beneficiary 's intended U.S. employment: "However , the petitioner failed to 
clarify how the other organizations, managers of [ the petitioning U.S. emp layer] will relieved [sic] the 
beneficiary from operational and administrative duties associate Software products and services [sic]." 
Without further elaboration, this single sentence did not afford the Petitioner an adequate opportunity 
to prepare an effective appeal. The denial notice must explain the specific reasons for denial. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(i). Furthermore, the meaning and purpose of the last five words in the quoted sentence 
are not clear, as the petitioning U.S. employer is not a software company. 
Discussing the Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad, the Director stated: 
The petitioner failed to provide an organizational chart and provide pos1t10n 
description[s] for the other employees of the company. Additionally, the beneficiary's 
position description did not provide any details of what the beneficiary actually did on 
a day-to-day basis, and there was no evidence to indicate that the individuals that 
perfonn the non-managerial duties associated to her [sic] position or to relieve the 
beneficiary from non-managerial duties. 
The second quoted sentence appears to be incomplete, and the Director did not sufficiently elaborate 
on the stated deficiencies. The Petitioner had previously submitted organizational charts for the 
foreign entity, at Exhibit DI of the initial filing and Exhibit H3 of the response to a notice of intent to 
deny (NOID). The Petitioner had also submitted position descriptions for the Beneficiary's 
subordinates abroad, in a letter that accompanied the petition and again in Exhibit C of the response 
to the NOID. Because the Director incorrectly stated that the Petitioner did not submit those 
documents, it is not clear that the Director considered them. 
The denial notice also refers to "the role held by the beneficiary at 
I but that is not the name of the Beneficiary's claimed employer abroad. 
The Director's denial also relied heavily on a perceived discrepancy in the Beneficiary's employment 
history. The petition's record of proceeding indicates that he worked for I I since 2009, 
but when the Beneficiary filed a nonimmi rant etition at the U.S. Embass in Beijing, , China in 2017, 
he identified his employer as _________________ 
He He also indicated that he had studied at University from 2013 to 2015. The Director 
concluded that this information contradicts the Petitioner's claims about the Beneficiary's employment 
atl I 
The Director's NOID did not mention the perceived conflicting information; the issue appeared for 
the first time in the denial notice. Therefore, the Director did not give the Petitioner a chance to 
address that information before the Director issued a decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l6)(i). 
On a eal the Petitioner establishes that the two names 
_____________________ refer to the same company. The logo for 
_____ ___,includes four Chinese characters pronounced as and the address 
and telephone number that the Petitioner provided for the company on his nonimmigrant visa 
application match information for I in the record. Thus, there is no contradiction in 
the employment claims. 
2 
The Petitioner also addresses the Beneficiary's graduate studies on appeal, asserting that the 
Beneficiary attended classes on weekends without interrupting his employment. Even so, an 
interruption in employment would be material only if it prevented a beneficiary from working for at 
least one continuous year during the three years immediately preceding the petition's filing date. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A). In this case, the classes ended in July 2015, four years before the 
Petitioner filed the petition in August 2019. Therefore, the classes did not overlap with the material 
three-year period from August 2016 to August 2019. 
The Director's decision at present is deficient for the reasons stated above. We will therefore withdraw 
that decision. The Director must issue a new decision, fully addressing the evidence of record, 
including the information provided on appeal. If the Director uncovers evidence outside the record 
that appears to cast doubt on the Petitioner's claims, then the Director must advise the Petitioner of 
the derogatory information 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