Research And Development (R&D) And Operations Manager

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.

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.

The petitioner did not demonstrate that the beneficiary's duties would be primarily managerial rather than operational. The job descriptions provided were vague, focusing on discretionary authority rather than specific daily tasks, and included non-managerial duties such as attending networking events and communicating with suppliers. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to prove a qualifying relationship with the offshore entity providing support staff.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a primarily managerial capacity for at least one year. The evidence provided, including job descriptions and an organizational chart, did not sufficiently distinguish the Beneficiary's role from other senior data scientists or demonstrate primary engagement in managerial duties over operational tasks. The RFE response also lacked specific details on time breakdown for duties and managerial authority over personnel.