sustained EB-1C Case: Financial Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8642343 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 26, 2020 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a financial payment service provider, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as 
its executive vice president in the United States under the first preference immigrant classification for 
multinational executives or managers. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(C) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed by a qualifying entity abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding his entry to the United States to work 
for the Petitioner as a nonimmigrant. The Petitioner later filed an appeal. We withdrew the Director's 
decision and remanded the matter for the limited purpose of entering a new decision on that same issue, 
consistent with our discussion. On remand, the Director issued a new decision that expanded on the 
grounds for denial by adding new issues, concluding the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity or that he was 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad prior to his entry into the United States as a 
non immigrant. 
On appeal, the Petitioner notes the Director concluded that it provided sufficient evidence to establish 
that the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign employer for at least one year in the three years 
preceding his entry to the United States. The Petitioner states that since this was the only issue addressed 
in our previous remand decision, the Director exceeded the scope of our decision in determining that it 
did not meet its evidentiary burden with respect to other aforementioned issues. The Petitioner contends 
that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the Unites States and that he was 
employed in this same capacity abroad. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Director exceeded the scope of our March 19, 2019 remand 
decision. In that decision, we concluded the Director did not sufficiently analyze the Petitioner's 
assertion that the Beneficiary was under the control of, and employed by, the foreign employer while 
working there through a placement agency. We remanded the matter stating that the Director should 
make a "determination on this issue after a thorough review and analysis of the Petitioner's evidence" 
and "request any additional evidence deemed warranted." During the remanded proceedings, the 
Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), and following the Petitioner's response, the Director 
stated in her later decision that the Petitioner had sufficiently demonstrated that he was formerly 
employed abroad by this entity. However, as discussed, the Director also concluded that the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the 
United States or that he was employed in this capacity in his former position abroad. 
In general, when the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) remands a reopened proceeding to an 
officer, the remand is effective for the stated purpose and for consideration of any and all other matters 
which the officer deems appropriate in the exercise of their administrative discretion. However, when 
the remand order expressly retains jurisdiction over some portion of the proceeding or otherwise limits 
the remand for a specific purpose, the officer must restrict his or her review to the AAO's specific 
directions on remand. See Matter of Patel, 16 l&N Dec. 600, 601 (BIA 1978) (holding that when the 
Board of Immigration Appeals remands a case to an immigration judge, the "remand is effective for 
the stated purpose and for consideration of any and all other matters which the [immigration judge] 
deems appropriate in the exercise of [their] administrative discretion" unless the Board's decision 
expressly retained jurisdiction over some portion of the proceeding and qualified or limited the remand 
for a specific purpose). Our prior decision clearly stated that the Director should issue a new decision 
only as to the issue of whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad by the foreign employer for at 
least one year in the three years preceding his entry to the United States. For this reason, we will withdraw 
the Director's decision. 
In addition, upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner has sufficiently established that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States, and that he was employed abroad, in an executive capacity. The 
Petitioner submitted credible and detailed duty descriptions for the Beneficiary and other supporting 
evidence demonstrating that his role in the United States and abroad meet the definition of executive 
capacity at section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 2010). 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2