sustained
EB-1C
sustained EB-1C Case: Finance
Decision Summary
The initial appeal was summarily dismissed because the Petitioner had not submitted a brief or evidence. On a motion to reopen, the Petitioner showed it had in fact provided the required documentation. Upon de novo review of this evidence, the AAO concluded that the Petitioner had established the beneficiary was employed abroad and will be employed in the U.S. in a qualifying managerial capacity.
Criteria Discussed
Qualifying Managerial Or Executive Capacity
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
MATTER OF F-G-, INC.
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office
DATE: JAN. 5, 2016
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER
The Petitioner, a finance andinsurance company, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its
treasury manager under multinational executive or manager immigrant classification. See
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), § 203(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C). The Director,
Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. We summarily dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent
appeal. The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion
will be granted and the appeal will be sustained.
The Director determined that the evidence of record did not establish that the Beneficiary had been
employed abroad or would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive
capacity. We summarily dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §
103.3(a)(l)(v) after determining that the Petitioner had not submitted a brief or supplemental
evidence in support of its appeal or otherwise identified the basis for the appeal.
On motion, the Petitioner submits evidence that it did in fact provide a brief and additional
documentation in support of its appeal. Accordingly, we have reopened the matter in order to
consider the merits of that appeal.1
Upon reviewing the entire record of proceeding, we conclude that the record now contains sufficient
evidence to overcome the basis for the Director's decision. Specifically, the Petitioner has
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and will
be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial capacity as defined at section
101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act.
1 We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. We conduct appellate review on a de novo
basis. Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015); see also 5 U.S.C. § 557(b) ("On appeal from or
review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as
it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); Dar v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989). We follow the
preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 201 0).
Matter of F-G-, Inc.
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128
(BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has met that burden.
ORDER: The motion to reopen and reconsider is granted and the appeal is sustained.
Cite as Matter ofF-G-, Inc., ID# 15130 (AAO Jan. 5, 2016)
2 Use this winning precedent in your petition
MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.
Build Your Winning Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.