FEB192026_01B4203Decided 2026-02-19I-140

The AAO remanded an EB-1C denial for a restaurant chain's general manager, finding SCOPS misapplied the law on both the…

Remanded Useful for: appeal strategy
EB-1CField: restaurant management / food and beverage (hot pot Chinese restaurant chain)
The outcome

Good news — this case cleared the first bar

The AAO withdrew SCOPS' denial and remanded for a new decision, finding that SCOPS erred in concluding there was no valid job offer and in failing to properly analyze all qualifying foreign managerial positions during the relevant period.

In plain English

A restaurant management company petitioned for permanent residence for a beneficiary to serve as general manager at its wholly owned subsidiary. SCOPS denied the petition, finding no valid job offer and insufficient evidence of qualifying managerial capacity abroad. The AAO reversed the job-offer finding, noting that employment at a wholly owned subsidiary satisfies the employer requirement. The AAO also found that SCOPS misread the personnel manager definition by requiring supervision of professionals only, and failed to analyze all four foreign managerial positions during the qualifying three-year window in the aggregate. The matter was remanded for a new decision addressing all positions and the correct legal standard.

What worked & what failed

What worked: The Petitioner successfully established that the wholly owned subsidiary relationship created a valid qualifying job offer. The documented series of managerial roles abroad within the same restaurant group supported the argument that the Beneficiary held qualifying positions during the relevant period.

What failed: SCOPS' denial rested on an overly narrow reading of the personnel manager definition (requiring professional subordinates) and a failure to aggregate the Beneficiary's multiple foreign positions during the qualifying period. These errors, not weaknesses in the petitioner's evidence, led to remand rather than approval.

Takeaway: When a beneficiary holds multiple sequential managerial roles abroad within a corporate family, petitioners should explicitly frame each role and argue their aggregate duration satisfies the one-year requirement. Petitioners should also clarify whether subordinates are supervisors, managers, or professionals, since personnel manager status does not require professional subordinates.

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

  • The Petitioner successfully established that the wholly owned subsidiary relationship created a valid qualifying job offer
  • The documented series of managerial roles abroad within the same restaurant group supported the argument that the Beneficiary held qualifying positions during the relevant period.

Evidence that wasn't enough alone

  • SCOPS' denial rested on an overly narrow reading of the personnel manager definition (requiring professional subordinates) and a failure to aggregate the Beneficiary's multiple foreign positions during the qualifying period
  • These errors, not weaknesses in the petitioner's evidence, led to remand rather than approval.
Find more EB-1C cases with similar evidence patterns →
How the case moved

Completed

I-140 filed

General manager of a restaurant chain subsidiary

Completed

SCOPS — Denied

Initial decision: Denied.

Completed

Appeal to the AAO

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

2026-02-19

AAO decision — Remanded

The AAO withdrew SCOPS' denial and remanded for a new decision, finding that SCOPS erred in concluding there was no valid job offer and in failing to properly analyze all qualifying foreign managerial positions during the relevant 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.

Authorities the office relied on
ChawatheThe petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence.
Christa's, Inc.The AAO reviews questions of law and fact de novo.