President And CEO

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would act in an executive capacity in the United States. The AAO found that the Petitioner did not credibly document the proportion of executive versus non-qualifying duties, provided insufficient detail for executive tasks, and presented conflicting evidence regarding the organizational structure and staffing to support an executive role at the time of filing.

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 Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity because the organizational structure lacked sufficient staffing to relieve the Beneficiary from operational duties. The AAO found that post-filing hirings could not be considered to establish eligibility at the time of filing. Consequently, the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof regarding the nature of the offered U.S. job.