This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed to address SCOPS's dismissal of the motion to reopen as untimely, and also failed to address the denial basis that the Beneficiary would not be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the U.S. Both issues were deemed waived.
A company selling cellphones and accessories filed an I-140 petition to employ a foreign national as its president under the EB-1C multinational executive classification. SCOPS denied the petition on three grounds, including that the beneficiary's duties were too vague to establish a qualifying executive or managerial role. After the petitioner's motion to reopen was dismissed as untimely, the petitioner appealed but did not address either the untimeliness ruling or the core denial ground regarding executive/managerial capacity. The AAO dismissed the appeal because failure to address dispositive issues on appeal constitutes a waiver of those issues. The remaining denial grounds regarding qualifying corporate relationship and bona fide job offer were not reached.
What failed: The petitioner failed to address the untimely filing of its motion to reopen, and also failed to respond to the denial ground that the beneficiary's proposed duties were too vague to establish a qualifying executive or managerial role supported by adequate staffing. Both failures were treated as waivers, resulting in dismissal.
Takeaway: Petitioners must directly and specifically address every denial ground in their appeal brief; failing to respond to even one dispositive issue will result in dismissal by waiver. If a motion to reopen is filed late, the petitioner must provide documented reasons why the delay was reasonable and beyond their control.
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 failed to address the untimely filing of its motion to reopen, and also failed to respond to the denial ground that the beneficiary's proposed duties were too vague to establish a qualifying executive or managerial role supported by adequate staffing
- Both failures were treated as waivers, resulting in dismissal.
Completed
I-140 filed
President of a company selling cellphones and accessories
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-04-17
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed to address SCOPS's dismissal of the motion to reopen as untimely, and also failed to address the denial basis that the Beneficiary would not be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the U.S. Both issues were deemed waived.
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.