Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1C RFE Issued

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Packaging Supplies Company ยท 2024-09-13

Decision Date
2024-09-13
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

1 of 2 criteria met
Qualifying Relationship (Met)

The AAO found that a qualifying relationship exists between the Petitioner and the foreign employer, as the Beneficiary is the sole owner of both entities, demonstrating common ownership and control.

Executive Capacity (Not Met)

The Director's decision regarding executive capacity was deemed incomplete, as it focused on perceived staffing inconsistencies rather than assessing the Petitioner's staffing at the time of filing or the Beneficiary's proposed job duties. The AAO remanded for further analysis on this criterion.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

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.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE requested clarification on the qualifying relationship, specifically questioning if the Petitioner's S-corporation status precluded an affiliate relationship. It also sought more information on the Beneficiary's executive capacity, citing concerns about the Petitioner's staffing composition. The Petitioner responded by providing updated organizational charts and explanations for staffing changes.

RFE Targets
Qualifying RelationshipExecutive Capacity

Evidence

Evidence Submitted
  • Beneficiary's sole ownership of the Petitioner and foreign employer
  • Organizational chart with updated staffing structure
  • Lists of employees, their positions, and duties
  • Beneficiary occupies the top-most position with the petitioning organization

Similar Cases

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Software

USCIS EB-1C rfe remanded
Texas 2024-08-08
The Director's decision was withdrawn and the matter remanded because it failed to adequately state specific reasons for denial, did not fully analyze submitted evidence, and overlooked the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.

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)

Wholesale Trade

USCIS EB-1C rfe remanded
2022-12-01
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.

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Retail

USCIS EB-1C dismissed
2990 days 2024-12-19
The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The Petitioner did not resolve numerous discrepancies regarding the Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad (inconsistent dates, salary, and employer claims on NIV application) and her U.S. position (inability to describe duties during site visit, spouse performing duties, conflicting ownership information, and inconsistent tax returns).

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

More remanded cases More Manufacturing cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-09-13.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 1 / 2

EB-1C Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 89
Success Rate 15.7%
Sustained 14
Dismissed 47

Related Pages

EB-1C Overview All EB-1C Cases EB-1C Dashboard

Get Case Insights

Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.

Join Waitlist