This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the motion to reopen, finding that although the new amended tax return established a qualifying corporate relationship, the Petitioner still failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would direct a management structure in an executive capacity in the U.S., due to insufficient and internally inconsistent evidence about subordinate staff.
An advertising and marketing consulting company sought to permanently transfer a foreign employee as its general manager under the EB-1C multinational executive classification. The Director denied the petition on four grounds, and the AAO previously dismissed the appeal based solely on the lack of a qualifying corporate relationship. On motion to reopen, the company submitted an amended tax return that resolved the qualifying relationship issue in its favor. However, the AAO found the motion still had to be dismissed because the company had not established that the beneficiary would direct a management structure in an executive capacity: subordinate job descriptions were absent, job offer letters contradicted the organizational chart, payroll records contained serious inconsistencies, and six different employees were all labeled with the same title. The AAO reserved two remaining denial grounds (executive capacity abroad and ability to pay) as unnecessary to decide.
What worked: The amended 2022 tax return, combined with the majority of other tax returns and the LLC company agreement, was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a qualifying corporate relationship existed between the petitioning U.S. company and the beneficiary's foreign employer.
What failed: The company could not demonstrate that the beneficiary would direct a real management structure: no subordinate job descriptions were submitted, the organizational chart conflicted with the number of employees reported on the petition form, job offer letters gave inconsistent titles, six different employees were all called 'Human Resources Executive,' and payroll records showed very low wages and suspicious identical bank account numbers. These inconsistencies undermined the credibility of the entire evidentiary record.
Takeaway: For EB-1C petitions, detailed and consistent documentation of subordinate managers is critical — petitioners must show a genuine management layer for the executive to direct, with job descriptions, consistent titles, and credible pay records that all align with the organizational chart. Inconsistencies across documents (org charts, payroll, offer letters, tax returns) will severely damage credibility even if individual issues are later corrected.
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 amended 2022 tax return, combined with the majority of other tax returns and the LLC company agreement, was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a qualifying corporate relationship existed between the petitioning U.S
- company and the beneficiary's foreign employer.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The company could not demonstrate that the beneficiary would direct a real management structure: no subordinate job descriptions were submitted, the organizational chart conflicted with the number of employees reported on the petition form, job offer letters gave inconsistent titles, six different employees were all called 'Human Resources Executive,' and payroll records showed very low wages and suspicious identical bank account numbers
- These inconsistencies undermined the credibility of the entire evidentiary record.
Amended 2022 income tax return establishing the sole member of the LLC, accepted as sufficient to establish a qualifying corporate relationship by a preponderance of the evidence alongside the company agreement and other tax returns.
Organizational chart showing 10 subordinate positions was inconsistent with the Form I-140 claiming only 5 U.S. employees.
Job offer letters for subordinates did not match job titles on the organizational chart and offered the same 'Human Resources Executive' title to six different employees.
Purported payroll records showed low salaries (all below $16,000/year), suspicious identical partial bank account numbers for nine of ten employees, and a check date nearly a year before the pay period end date.
Rewrote job description for Beneficiary's U.S. role added few new details and did not establish that the Beneficiary would direct a management structure.
No subordinate job descriptions were found in the record despite claims on appeal that they had been submitted.
The 'Creative Director' was offered an 'Administrative Assistant' position in a prior job offer letter, undermining claims that subordinates hold managerial or executive roles.
The AAO found no legal error in the underlying denial; rather, it found the Petitioner's new evidence insufficient to change the outcome on executive capacity grounds.
Completed
I-140 filed
General manager of an advertising and marketing consulting company
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2025-02-05
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the motion to reopen, finding that although the new amended tax return established a qualifying corporate relationship, the Petitioner still failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would direct a management structure in an executive capacity in the U.S., due to insufficient and internally inconsistent evidence about subordinate staff.
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