remanded EB-1C Case: Windows And Doors Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 19804759 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 10, 2022 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Manager or Executive 
The Petitioner is engaged in the distribution and installation of windows and doors . At the time of 
filing, it claimed 15 employees and sought to permanently employ the Beneficiary in an executive 
capacity as its chief executive officer 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)(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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The Director discussed the job duties of several of the Beneficiary's subordinates 
noting that "[t]he description of the Office Manager does not establish that [she] manages office 
operations, but that she performs the activity or function of office operations." The Director made 
similarly adverse findings regarding the job descriptions of the Petitioner's VP of sales and chief 
operating officer. Namely, the Director stated that the latter "spends less than a primary portion of 
[his] time managing and supervising the work of others" and that the job description for the VP of 
sales "does not include him supervising and controlling the work of other personnel but involves him 
doing the hands-on work of the [P]etitioner' s business." The matter is now before us on appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not correctly assess the evidence, which thereby 
resulted in an unwarranted adverse decision. The Petitioner points to previously submitted evidence, 
including employee job descriptions, payroll records, and an organizational chart containing the 
photographic images, names, and position titles of the Petitioner's 15-person staff atthe time of filing 
The Petitioner contends that the evidence it previously provided adequately demonstrates its eligibility 
at the time of filing. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the record as presently constituted does not support the Director's 
conclusion and we will therefore remand the matter for further consideration. First, we note that the 
Director offered a deficient analysis of the relevant facts. Namely, the Director incorrectly relied on 
the Florida Secretary of State's website to determine that there were inconsistencies regarding several 
of the employees' position titles. The Director also incorrectly assigned elements of the definition of 
managerial capacity to the Beneficiary's subordinates in the proposed position. 1 In order to 
demonstrate eligibility the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary meets the four statutory elements 
comprising the definition of executive capacity. 2 Further, as noted by the Petitioner on appeal, the 
record contains employee job descriptions, payroll records, and the Petitioner's 2018 organizational 
chart. It is unclear whether the Director properly considered this evidence. 
In light of the above, we hereby withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further 
consideration of the Petitioner's eligibility. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
1 See sections IO l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act, which require a petitioner to establish that the beneficiary of the visa 
petition meet the statutory criteria of managerial or executive capacity. 
2 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity, and therefore it would 
not have to demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets the elements comprising that statutory definition. 
2