This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad by the Petitioner's parent, affiliate, or subsidiary for at least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. The record was riddled with material inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's foreign employment history, dates, employer addresses, and corporate documentation.
A U.S. golf, real estate, and import company petitioned to permanently employ a foreign national as its general manager under the EB-1C multinational executive/manager classification. SCOPS denied the petition and the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish the Beneficiary met the foreign employment requirement. The record contained pervasive inconsistencies: the original support letter claimed full-time employment since 2009, but a later response stated employment was part-time until 2012; the Beneficiary omitted the parent company from three nonimmigrant visa applications; the organizational chart listed only 22 employees while the petition claimed over 5,000; and key corporate documents contained anomalies including conflicting dates, inconsistent company names, and contradictory references to a board of directors. The Petitioner's attempt to blame an unlicensed representative for these discrepancies under an ineffective assistance of counsel theory was rejected because that doctrine applies only to licensed attorneys or accredited representatives.
What failed: 1. The Petitioner's evidence of the Beneficiary's foreign employment was internally inconsistent — the original support letter, subsequent RFE responses, the Beneficiary's visa applications, and his Form G-325A all told different stories about his employment dates, employer, and job type (full-time vs. part-time). 2. Corporate documents submitted to prove the foreign entity's structure contained serious anomalies, including mismatched dates between English and Chinese versions of the operating agreement, use of an outdated company name, and contradictions about whether a board of directors existed. 3. The claim that over 5,000 employees were supervised was undermined by an organizational chart showing only 22 employees, and the attempt to shift blame to an unlicensed representative as 'ineffective counsel' was legally unavailable.
Takeaway: In EB-1C petitions, consistency across all documents — support letters, visa applications, corporate records, and biographic forms — is critical; any discrepancy in the beneficiary's foreign employment history will be scrutinized closely and can be fatal to the petition. Petitioners should ensure corporate documentation is complete, internally consistent, and accurately reflects the foreign entity's actual structure before filing.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1C criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The Petitioner's evidence of the Beneficiary's foreign employment was internally inconsistent — the original support letter, subsequent RFE responses, the Beneficiary's visa applications, and his Form G-325A all told different stories about his employment dates, employer, and job type (full-time vs
- Corporate documents submitted to prove the foreign entity's structure contained serious anomalies, including mismatched dates between English and Chinese versions of the operating agreement, use of an outdated company name, and contradictions about whether a board of directors existed
- The claim that over 5,000 employees were supervised was undermined by an organizational chart showing only 22 employees, and the attempt to shift blame to an unlicensed representative as 'ineffective counsel' was legally unavailable.
Original support letter claiming Beneficiary worked full-time at the parent company since February 2009 — contradicted by later RFE response stating part-time from 2009-2011 and full-time only from January 2012
Beneficiary's nonimmigrant visa applications (September 2012, April 2014, May 2015) did not list the parent company as employer, and showed different employer addresses inconsistent with the I-140 claims
Foreign entity's translated operating agreement — contained anomalies including starting on page 18, using an outdated company name in the title, inconsistent dates between English (2015) and Chinese (2011) versions, and contradictory clauses about the existence of a board of directors
Corporate documents referencing a board of directors — contradicted by the operating agreement stating the company had no board of directors
Claim that the Beneficiary supervised more than 5,000 employees — contradicted by organizational chart listing only 22 employees including the Beneficiary
Petitioner's explanation that inconsistencies in NIV applications were due to transliteration differences — did not account for different employer addresses across the applications
Petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel — the alleged representative was not shown to be a licensed attorney or accredited representative
AAO found no legal error in SCOPS' denial on foreign employment grounds; the AAO independently confirmed the foreign employment requirement was not met
The AAO rejected the Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel argument because the alleged representative was not a licensed attorney or accredited representative, making the Lozada framework inapplicable
Completed
I-140 filed
General manager of a golf operation, real estate, and import business
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-04-09
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad by the Petitioner's parent, affiliate, or subsidiary for at least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. The record was riddled with material inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's foreign employment history, dates, employer addresses, and corporate documentation.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee