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anomalies, including mismatched dates between English and Chinese versions of the operating agreement, use of an outdated company name, and contradictions about whether a board of directors existed. 3.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.
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.