Chief Financial Officer

The AAO remanded the case because the Director disregarded the Petitioner's descriptions of job duties, misinterpreted evidence regarding the Beneficiary's U.S. start date (September 2023 vs. 2019), and incorrectly concluded the Beneficiary was employed as CFO in the U.S. based on a legal formality. The AAO also noted the Director should have focused on staffing at the time of filing and reconsidered the executive nature of the Beneficiary's work, asking for more information on non-supervised employees.

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) withdrew the Director's decision to revoke, finding the Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) and revocation notice impermissibly vague and lacking sufficient detail and corroboration. The AAO determined that the evidence presented did not adequately support a finding of willful misrepresentation, particularly regarding the beneficiary's prior dentistry career and remote work from Florida. The matter was remanded for further consideration of the misrepresentation finding and potential concerns about the petition's merits, including financial documentation discrepancies.

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.