APR292026_01B4203Decided 2026-04-29I-140

The AAO remanded an EB-1C petition for a general manager of an online electronics retailer after finding SCOPS wrongly…

Remanded Useful for: appeal strategy
EB-1CField: online retailer of computer electronics
The outcome

Good news — this case cleared the first bar

The AAO withdrew SCOPS' denial because the record did contain evidence of doing business for at least one year, but remanded due to other evidentiary deficiencies including missing translator certifications, an incomplete stock certificate, a vague job description, and inconsistent staffing figures.

In plain English

SCOPS denied this EB-1C petition for a general manager at an online computer electronics retailer on the ground that the company had not shown it was doing business for at least one year. The AAO reversed that finding, noting that purchase invoices, sales invoices, and shipping documents in the record clearly showed regular, systematic, and continuous business activity. However, the AAO remanded rather than approved the petition because of four separate deficiencies: foreign-language documents lacked the required translator certification; the stock certificate purporting to show a parent-subsidiary relationship was incomplete and unsigned; the job description was too vague to establish that the beneficiary's duties are primarily executive in nature; and payroll records contradicted the petitioner's claimed staffing level. On remand, SCOPS must issue a new decision addressing these issues and may issue a Request for Evidence to give the petitioner an opportunity to cure the deficiencies.

What worked & what failed

What worked: Purchase and sales invoices and shipping documents were sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner had been doing business in a regular, systematic, and continuous manner for at least one year, overturning the sole basis for SCOPS' denial.

What failed: 1) Foreign-language documents (payroll records, labor contract, articles of association, appointment notices) were submitted without a proper translator certification or identification of the translator. 2) The stock certificate offered to prove the parent-subsidiary relationship was incomplete, unsigned, undated, and contained blank fields. 3) The beneficiary's job description consisted only of vague percentage breakdowns without specific daily tasks, making it impossible to confirm the position is primarily executive in nature. 4) The claimed employee headcount of 10 was contradicted by quarterly wage records showing 8-9 employees.

Takeaway: For EB-1C petitions, every foreign-language document must have a certified translation with the translator's identity and competency stated; stock certificates and organizational documents must be fully executed and legible; and job descriptions must go beyond restating the regulatory definition by detailing the beneficiary's specific daily tasks in the context of the actual business operations.

For RFE responses & petition building

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

  • Purchase and sales invoices and shipping documents were sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner had been doing business in a regular, systematic, and continuous manner for at least one year, overturning the sole basis for SCOPS' denial.

Evidence that wasn't enough alone

  • 1) Foreign-language documents (payroll records, labor contract, articles of association, appointment notices) were submitted without a proper translator certification or identification of the translator
  • 2) The stock certificate offered to prove the parent-subsidiary relationship was incomplete, unsigned, undated, and contained blank fields
  • 3) The beneficiary's job description consisted only of vague percentage breakdowns without specific daily tasks, making it impossible to confirm the position is primarily executive in nature
  • 4) The claimed employee headcount of 10 was contradicted by quarterly wage records showing 8-9 employees.
Find more EB-1C cases with similar evidence patterns →
How the case moved

Completed

I-140 filed

General manager of an online computer electronics retailer

Completed

SCOPS — Denied

Initial decision: Denied.

Completed

Appeal to the AAO

Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.

2026-04-29

AAO decision — Remanded

The AAO withdrew SCOPS' denial because the record did contain evidence of doing business for at least one year, but remanded due to other evidentiary deficiencies including missing translator certifications, an incomplete stock certificate, a vague job description, and inconsistent staffing figures.

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.

Authorities the office relied on
ChawathePetitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence; assertions must be supported with relevant, probative, and credible evidence.
Christa's, Inc.The AAO reviews questions of law and fact de novo on appeal.
Fedin Bros.Determining whether duties are primarily executive requires specific information about actual daily tasks; merely reiterating regulatory definitions is insufficient.