Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1C RFE Issued

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Software Implementation And Consulting Company ยท 2024-08-08

Decision Date
2024-08-08
Location
Texas
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 1 criteria met
Qualifying Relationship (Not Met)

The Director concluded that the record did not establish a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer, specifically failing to demonstrate an affiliate relationship based on common ownership and control. The Director also did not address the Petitioner's claim of a parent-subsidiary relationship.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The Director's decision was withdrawn and the matter remanded because it failed to adequately state specific reasons for denial, did not fully analyze submitted evidence, and overlooked the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.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The initial RFE from the Director did not adequately address inconsistencies and deficiencies in the evidence submitted to establish the ownership and control of both the U.S. and foreign entities. The AAO has instructed the Director to issue a new RFE to address these issues, including any ownership changes since the petition's denial, to clarify the qualifying relationship.

RFE Targets
Qualifying Relationshiporganizational structure

Similar Cases

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 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).

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 Operating Officer (COO)

Fintech

USCIS EB-1C rfe remanded
2025-02-26
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.

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 Software cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-08-08.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 0 / 1

EB-1C Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 90
Success Rate 16.7%
Sustained 15
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