President/Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

The Director's decision was withdrawn and the matter remanded because it failed to adequately state specific reasons for denial, did not fully analyze submitted evidence, and overlooked the Petitioner's claim of a parent-subsidiary relationship. The AAO also noted significant inconsistencies in the ownership documentation provided for both the U.S. and foreign entities, which were not addressed in the initial RFE or decision.

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.

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director did not sufficiently analyze all submitted evidence regarding the qualifying relationship, including stock certificates, written consents, meeting minutes, stock ledger, tax returns, and bank documentation. Additionally, the AAO concluded that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, citing a generic duty description and evidence suggesting substantial involvement in day-to-day transactions rather than qualifying duties. The matter is remanded for a new decision considering all evidence.