How common are approved EB-1C petitions?

EB-1C petition outcomes vary based on the strength of evidence, the specific criteria addressed, and the adjudicating officer. Each case is evaluated individually based on its own merits and documentation.

How does the contract research and development company industry affect EB-1C petition outcomes?

The contract research and development company sector has unique considerations for EB-1C petitions. USCIS evaluates whether the petitioner's qualifications and contributions align with the specific requirements of the visa category. Industry context matters for demonstrating the significance and impact of the petitioner's work.

sustained EB-1C

Finance Manager

Contract Research And Development Company · 2024-08-29

Decision Date

2024-08-29

This case is from a USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) appeal decision. Appeal cases represent a subset of petitions and may not reflect typical outcomes.

Framework Evaluation

5 of 5 criteria met

Executive Capacity (Met)

The decision states that 'all other eligibility requirements for the requested classification have been satisfied,' implying that the executive capacity criterion was met.

Managerial Capacity (Met)

The decision states that 'all other eligibility requirements for the requested classification have been satisfied,' implying that the managerial capacity criterion was met.

Qualifying Relationship (Met)

The decision states that 'all other eligibility requirements for the requested classification have been satisfied,' implying that the qualifying relationship criterion was met.

Foreign Employment Duration (Met)

The decision states that 'all other eligibility requirements for the requested classification have been satisfied,' implying that the foreign employment duration criterion was met.

Organizational Structure (Met)

The decision states that 'all other eligibility requirements for the requested classification have been satisfied,' implying that the organizational structure criterion was met.

Why This Petition Was Approved

Upon de novo review, the AAO concluded that the Petitioner successfully established its ability to pay the proffered wage by a preponderance of the evidence. The AAO considered factors such as net income, net current assets, and other relevant factors under Matter of Sonegawa, including the number of years in business, size of operations, business growth, number of employees, uncharacteristic business expenditures or losses, and reputation within its industry. Since all other eligibility requirements for the multinational manager/executive classification were deemed satisfied, the appeal was sustained.

Evidence

Evidence Types

Net Income

Net Current Assets

Number Of Years In Business

Size Of Operations

Business Growth

Number Of Employees

Uncharacteristic Business Expenditures Or Losses

Reputation Within Industry

Similar Cases

Others

Wholesale Trade

USCIS EB-1C dismissed

2025-02-24

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner did not state new facts supported by documentary evidence, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The Petitioner merely repeated prior assertions and failed to address the AAO's reason for dismissing the first motion, which was the lack of required initial evidence for several EB-1C criteria.

General Manager

Wholesale Trade

USCIS EB-1C rfe dismissed

2024-12-05

The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner omitted crucial initial evidence, including proof of the U.S. job offer, qualifying relationship, ability to pay, foreign employment duration, and continuing foreign operations, and failed to respond to the RFE. The AAO dismissed the appeal because it did not challenge the Director's findings. The motion to reopen was dismissed because it did not challenge the AAO's summary dismissal and the new evidence provided did not remedy the original denial grounds or constitute the required initial evidence for EB-1C eligibility.

Production Manager

Manufacturing

USCIS EB-1C rfe dismissed

2024-09-11

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's subordinates, both in the U.S. and abroad, qualified as professional employees requiring a bachelor's degree, or as managers/supervisors. The evidence submitted on motion, including updated letters, organizational charts, and educational credentials, did not sufficiently establish the managerial capacity criteria, and some evidence was previously submitted or lacked corroboration. The motion to reconsider also failed to articulate why the Director's decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.

Business Manager

Manufacturing

USCIS EB-1C remanded

2025-01-31

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found the Director's decision unclear, conflating the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed U.S. job duties without individual consideration. The AAO also noted the Director did not sufficiently address the Petitioner's evidence regarding the Beneficiary's role as a function manager, particularly concerning the organizational structure and scope of authority, and based the denial almost exclusively on staffing levels.

Frequently Asked Questions

A sustained EB-1C (I-140) petition means USCIS determined the petitioner met the eligibility requirements. For appealed cases, "sustained" means the appeal reversed a prior denial. The petitioner can proceed to the next step in the immigration process.

Browse More Cases

More sustained cases More Research and Development cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-08-29.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome sustained

Criteria Met 5 / 5

Evidence Types 8

EB-1C Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 89

Success Rate 15.7%

Sustained 14

Dismissed 47

EB-1C Overview All EB-1C Cases EB-1C Dashboard

Get Case Insights

Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.

Join Waitlist