All Cases
4 cases · 1 approved / sustained · 1 denied / dismissed · 2 remanded
Business Manager
Manufacturing
USCIS EB-1C remanded
2025-01-31
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found the Director's decision unclear, conflating the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed U.S. job duties without individual consideration. The AAO also noted the Director did not sufficiently address the Petitioner's evidence regarding the Beneficiary's role as a function manager, particularly concerning the organizational structure and scope of authority, and based the denial almost exclusively on staffing levels.
Others
Manufacturing · Australia
USCIS EB-1C rfe sustained
2024-10-11
The AAO sustained the appeal, finding that the plain language of the statute and regulations allows for direct employment of an 'unattached' foreign worker by a U.S. employer, provided all other eligibility requirements are met. The Beneficiary was continuously employed by the Petitioner's multinational organization for the required period in a managerial capacity, managing process engineering across U.S. and Asia sites with 75 direct and indirect reports. The Petitioner demonstrated the Beneficiary's role was primarily managerial, overseeing an essential function and exercising discretion over day-to-day operations.
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.
Production Manager
Manufacturing
USCIS EB-1C rfe dismissed
2024-09-11
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's subordinates, both in the U.S. and abroad, qualified as professional employees requiring a bachelor's degree, or as managers/supervisors. The evidence submitted on motion, including updated letters, organizational charts, and educational credentials, did not sufficiently establish the managerial capacity criteria, and some evidence was previously submitted or lacked corroboration. The motion to reconsider also failed to articulate why the Director's decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.