remanded EB-1C RFE Issued
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Distributor Of Glass Products ยท 2022-12-01
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
0 of 5 criteria metExecutive Capacity (Not Met)
The Petitioner failed to provide a duty description that accurately reflected the Beneficiary's actual daily tasks at the time of filing.
Organizational Structure (Not Met)
The record lacked evidence of the company's staffing and structure at the time of filing to prove the Beneficiary would be relieved from non-executive duties.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision because it lacked sufficient analysis of the totality of the evidence, including the organizational structure and the role of contractors. However, the appeal could not be sustained because the Petitioner failed to establish eligibility at the time of filing, specifically regarding the actual duties of the Beneficiary and the staffing available to relieve him of non-executive tasks. The matter was remanded to allow the Director to issue a new RFE and for the Petitioner to provide updated evidence of its staffing and business activities.
Request for Evidence (RFE)
Unsuccessfully AddressedThe RFE requested a breakdown of duties, an organizational chart, and tax records to verify staffing levels. The Petitioner provided an updated chart and 2020 tax forms, but failed to clarify the structure as of the March 2020 filing date.
RFE Targets
Executive CapacityOrganizational Structure
Evidence
Evidence Types
Reference Letters Dependent
Evidence Submitted
- CEO of a glass products distributor
- Overseeing three subordinate managers (operations, sales/marketing, and dispatch/warehouse) as of 2021
- Allocation of time across six areas of responsibility
- Management of 1099 contractors
Similar Cases
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Wholesale Trade
USCIS EB-1C rfe remanded
California 2025-03-04
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case for a new decision. The AAO found the Petitioner had established it was doing business for at least one year, contrary to the Director's finding. However, the AAO determined that the Director's analysis of the Beneficiary's executive capacity was insufficient, particularly regarding whether the Beneficiary's immediate subordinates constituted 'management' and the credibility of job descriptions.
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Manufacturing
USCIS EB-1C rfe remanded
2024-09-13
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.
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Construction
USCIS EB-1C remanded
Florida 2022-03-10
The AAO withdrew the denial because the Director incorrectly applied managerial capacity definitions to subordinates and failed to properly evaluate the submitted evidence, including job descriptions and payroll records. The case was remanded for a de novo review to determine if the Beneficiary meets the four statutory elements of executive capacity.
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Food and Beverage
USCIS EB-1C rfe remanded
Texas 2023-11-21
The Director's decision was withdrawn because it failed to provide a complete and accurate analysis of the evidence and applied incorrect legal standards regarding visa types. The matter was remanded to evaluate the Beneficiary's roles specifically under the 'executive capacity' framework as requested by the Petitioner. Additionally, the Director must clarify the timeline of the Beneficiary's qualifying foreign employment within the three years preceding his entry as a nonimmigrant.
Frequently Asked Questions
A remanded EB-1C petition means the case was sent back to the field office for further review. This happens when procedural errors are found or additional evidence should be considered. It is neither an approval nor a denial.
Browse More Cases
Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2022-12-01.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 0 / 5
Evidence Types 1
EB-1C Case Data
Scraped Case Data
Total Cases 89
Success Rate 15.7%
Sustained 14
Dismissed 47
Related Pages
Get Case Insights
Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.
Join Waitlist