AUG052019_02B4203Decided 2019-08-05I-140

The AAO dismissed a freight forwarding company's EB-1C petition because the company failed to respond adequately to a…

Dismissed Useful for: avoid these mistakes
EB-1CField: freight forwarding
The outcome

This appeal was not successful at this stage

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to respond to a Request for Evidence (RFE) with documents establishing a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer and evidence that the beneficiary worked abroad in a managerial or executive capacity.

In plain English

A U.S. freight forwarding company filed an I-140 petition to permanently employ a beneficiary as its president under the EB-1C multinational executive/manager classification. The Texas Service Center director denied the petition after the petitioner failed to adequately respond to an RFE requesting evidence of a qualifying corporate relationship and the beneficiary's managerial or executive employment abroad. On appeal, the petitioner submitted new evidence but the AAO declined to consider it, applying the Soriano/Obaigbena rule that evidence not submitted in response to an RFE cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal. Even evaluating the new evidence, the AAO found it undermined rather than supported the petition, as the foreign entity's tax return showed a different individual—not the beneficiary—as the majority shareholder, negating the claimed affiliate or subsidiary relationship.

What worked & what failed

What failed: The petitioner failed to respond to the RFE with any substantive evidence of the corporate ownership and control structure linking the U.S. company to the foreign employer, citing unexplained 'delays in Pakistan.' The job description for the beneficiary's foreign duties was too broadly stated to establish managerial or executive capacity. New evidence submitted on appeal was rejected under the Soriano/Obaigbena rule, and even if considered, it showed a different person as the foreign entity's majority shareholder, defeating the qualifying relationship claim.

Takeaway: Petitioners must respond fully to every RFE before it closes — evidence not submitted in response to an RFE will generally be rejected on appeal. When claiming a parent-subsidiary or affiliate relationship, provide complete, current documentation of ownership and control structures for all entities involved.

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

  • See summary above for details.

Evidence that wasn't enough alone

  • The petitioner failed to respond to the RFE with any substantive evidence of the corporate ownership and control structure linking the U.S
  • company to the foreign employer, citing unexplained 'delays in Pakistan.' The job description for the beneficiary's foreign duties was too broadly stated to establish managerial or executive capacity
  • New evidence submitted on appeal was rejected under the Soriano/Obaigbena rule, and even if considered, it showed a different person as the foreign entity's majority shareholder, defeating the qualifying relationship claim.
Find more EB-1C cases with similar evidence patterns →
Where the evidence fell short

Cancelled stock certificate from 2006 showing 10,000 shares previously issued to the foreign entity — insufficient to show current ownership structure

Stock certificate no. 2 dated January 1, 2016 issuing beneficiary 300 of 100,000 authorized shares — does not establish qualifying relationship

Undated and blank stock certificates nos. 3 and 4 — not vehicles for issuing shares

Broadly stated job description claiming beneficiary had discretionary authority abroad — insufficient without further detail

Letter from foreign entity's director on appeal — not accepted because it was submitted for the first time on appeal after RFE notice

Foreign entity's 2015 tax return submitted on appeal — showed a different individual, not the beneficiary, as majority shareholder, undermining the claimed relationship

How the case moved

Completed

I-140 filed

President of a freight forwarding company

Completed

Director — Denied

Initial decision: Denied.

Completed

Appeal to the AAO

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

2019-08-05

AAO decision — Dismissed

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to respond to a Request for Evidence (RFE) with documents establishing a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer and evidence that the beneficiary worked abroad in a managerial or executive capacity.

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
Authorities the office relied on
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2)8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2)8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12)8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14)
SorianoEvidence submitted for the first time on appeal addressing deficiencies raised in an RFE will not be considered.
ObaigbenaEvidence submitted for the first time on appeal addressing deficiencies raised in an RFE will not be considered.