This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO denied the motion to reconsider and granted the motion to reopen only in part to consider the previously omitted brief, but ultimately upheld the denial because the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity in the U.S. and had not shown qualifying managerial or executive employment abroad for the required one-year period.
The AAO reviewed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider an EB-1C petition filed by a South African food exporter seeking to employ a beneficiary as a 'Market Manager (International Expansion Coordinator).' The motion to reopen was partially granted to consider a brief that had been timely submitted but not included in the record. On de novo review, the AAO upheld the denial because the petitioner's duty descriptions were vague and conclusory, the record showed the beneficiary was involved in numerous non-qualifying operational tasks, and conflicting IRS filings and inconsistent organizational charts left material questions about whether sufficient staff existed to relieve the beneficiary from operational duties at the time of filing. The AAO also declined to address the foreign employment issue in depth, finding the U.S. employment deficiency alone dispositive.
What failed: 1. Duty descriptions for the proposed managerial role were too vague and conclusory, lacking day-to-day specifics needed to show the role was primarily managerial. 2. Conflicting IRS payroll records and inconsistent organizational charts undermined claims about staffing levels, making it impossible to show the beneficiary would be relieved of operational tasks. 3. Documentary evidence (purchase orders, invoices, FDA agent role) affirmatively showed the beneficiary was performing non-qualifying operational work, and the petitioner never quantified the managerial vs. operational split.
Takeaway: For EB-1C petitions, petitioners must provide granular, concrete evidence of both the beneficiary's managerial duties and the supporting staff structure with corroborating payroll records, W-2s, and detailed subordinate duty descriptions — vague organizational charts and conclusory duty letters are insufficient, especially when other evidence reveals operational involvement.
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
- Duty descriptions for the proposed managerial role were too vague and conclusory, lacking day-to-day specifics needed to show the role was primarily managerial
- Conflicting IRS payroll records and inconsistent organizational charts undermined claims about staffing levels, making it impossible to show the beneficiary would be relieved of operational tasks
- Documentary evidence (purchase orders, invoices, FDA agent role) affirmatively showed the beneficiary was performing non-qualifying operational work, and the petitioner never quantified the managerial vs
Proof that the petitioner's brief was timely mailed to the Texas Service Center within 30 days of filing the appeal, supporting partial grant of the motion to reopen.
Vague and conclusory duty descriptions for the beneficiary's proposed Market Manager (International Expansion Coordinator) role without day-to-day specifics
Conflicting IRS Form 941 Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Returns from Q1 2010 showing inconsistent employee counts and wage figures
Organizational charts that were inconsistent across filings and not corroborated by payroll records, W-2s, or 1099s from 2009-2010
Employment offer letters showing the operations manager and staff accountant did not join until August 2012, contradicting earlier organizational charts
Purchase orders, invoices, and transactional documents bearing the beneficiary's name indicating involvement in non-qualifying operational tasks
Broad assertions that the beneficiary would manage an essential function without clearly defining the function or documenting delegation of operational duties
The AAO's prior summary dismissal of the appeal was correct on the record at the time, but the brief had not been included in the record due to a processing delay — not a legal error by the Director but a procedural gap corrected on motion to reopen.
The Director's finding on qualifying foreign employment was upheld as the petitioner failed to submit required duty lists and subordinate evidence.
Completed
I-140 filed
International expansion coordinator / market manager for a food export company
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2018-04-30
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO denied the motion to reconsider and granted the motion to reopen only in part to consider the previously omitted brief, but ultimately upheld the denial because the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity in the U.S. and had not shown qualifying managerial or executive employment abroad for the required one-year period.
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