Chief Executive Officer

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter, finding the Director erred by requiring the Beneficiary to supervise professional subordinates and oversee a 'complex' organizational hierarchy to qualify as an executive. The AAO concluded that the record, supplemented on appeal, sufficiently established the Beneficiary's executive capacity abroad through detailed duty descriptions, organizational charts, and evidence of executive-level tasks. The Director is instructed to re-evaluate the U.S. employment in light of the correct executive definition.

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 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.