Chief Revenue Officer

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter, finding the Director erred by requiring the Beneficiary to supervise professional subordinates and oversee a 'complex' organizational hierarchy to qualify as an executive. The AAO concluded that the record, supplemented on appeal, sufficiently established the Beneficiary's executive capacity abroad through detailed duty descriptions, organizational charts, and evidence of executive-level tasks. The Director is instructed to re-evaluate the U.S. employment in light of the correct executive definition.

The AAO concluded that a qualifying relationship exists between the Petitioner and the foreign employer due to common sole ownership by the Beneficiary, despite the Petitioner's S-corporation tax status. The AAO found the Director erred by misinterpreting staffing changes as inconsistencies and failing to assess the Petitioner's staffing at the time of filing or the Beneficiary's proposed job duties to determine executive capacity. The matter was remanded for a new decision consistent with this analysis.

The AAO withdrew the Director's decision, finding that the Petitioner established its ability to pay the proffered salary of $142,088 per year through consolidated tax returns showing sufficient net current assets and proof of salary payments, also considering a merger that combined assets. The AAO also determined that the Beneficiary's employment in India, even while on the U.S. entity's payroll, constituted qualifying employment abroad under the statute and regulations, as the key factor is physical presence outside the U.S. and working for the 'same employer' or a related entity. The matter was remanded for a determination on the merits of the managerial capacity claim.