This appeal was fully successful
The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the Director exceeded the scope of the prior remand order by raising new issues beyond what was remanded. The AAO also independently found that the Beneficiary qualified as an executive both in the U.S. and abroad.
A financial payment service provider sought permanent residence for its executive vice president under the EB-1C multinational executive/manager classification. After the AAO's prior limited remand on a specific employment-abroad issue, the Director issued a new denial that improperly raised additional grounds outside the remand's scope. On appeal, the AAO found the Director violated the limited remand order by adding new issues regarding the Beneficiary's executive capacity in both the U.S. and abroad. The AAO independently reviewed those issues and concluded the Petitioner had provided credible and detailed evidence demonstrating the Beneficiary served in an executive capacity in both positions, ultimately sustaining the appeal and approving the petition.
What worked: The Petitioner submitted detailed and credible duty descriptions showing the Beneficiary exercised executive-level authority both in the U.S. role and in the prior foreign position. The Petitioner also successfully argued that the Director exceeded the scope of the remand order, which was a decisive procedural point. Evidence of the Beneficiary's employment through a placement agency was ultimately accepted as satisfying the qualifying foreign employment requirement.
What failed: No evidence was specifically rejected by the AAO. The Director's expanded denial on remand was the primary obstacle, but it was overturned on procedural grounds.
Takeaway: When appealing an EB-1C denial and obtaining a limited remand, clearly document the scope of the remand order—if the Director raises new issues beyond that scope on remand, the AAO will withdraw the decision. Strong, detailed duty descriptions are critical to establishing executive capacity for both U.S. and foreign positions.
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
- The Petitioner submitted detailed and credible duty descriptions showing the Beneficiary exercised executive-level authority both in the U.S
- role and in the prior foreign position
- The Petitioner also successfully argued that the Director exceeded the scope of the remand order, which was a decisive procedural point
- Evidence of the Beneficiary's employment through a placement agency was ultimately accepted as satisfying the qualifying foreign employment requirement.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- No evidence was specifically rejected by the AAO
- The Director's expanded denial on remand was the primary obstacle, but it was overturned on procedural grounds.
Credible and detailed duty descriptions for the Beneficiary demonstrating executive capacity in the U.S.
Supporting evidence demonstrating the Beneficiary's role abroad met the definition of executive capacity under INA § 101(a)(44)(B).
Evidence establishing the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign employer while working through a placement agency.
The Director exceeded the scope of the AAO's prior remand order by raising new issues (U.S. executive capacity and foreign executive capacity) beyond the single limited issue that was remanded (whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad by the foreign employer for at least one year in the three years preceding U.S. entry).
Completed
I-140 filed
Executive Vice President at a financial payment services company
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2020-08-26
AAO decision — Sustained
The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the Director exceeded the scope of the prior remand order by raising new issues beyond what was remanded. The AAO also independently found that the Beneficiary qualified as an executive both in the U.S. and abroad.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee