Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO withdrew the SCOPS denial because it was based on legal errors regarding qualifying relationships and inadequate review of managerial duties evidence, but remanded because the Petitioner failed to establish it qualifies as a multinational entity due to insufficient documentation of its claimed affiliate relationship with a Russian entity.
A library services company filed an I-140 to permanently employ its Latin America Portfolio manager under the EB-1C multinational manager/executive classification. SCOPS denied the petition based on two errors: incorrectly requiring a separate foreign legal entity (when the beneficiary worked for the U.S. company's foreign branch) and inadequately reviewing the detailed job duty evidence supporting managerial capacity. The AAO reversed both adverse findings but identified a new unresolved issue: the company's evidence that it qualifies as a multinational entity through an affiliate relationship with a Russian company was insufficient due to an incomplete and improperly certified translation, missing document pages, and an apparently revocable proxy agreement that contradicted the owner's claim of controlling the Russian entity. The case was remanded for SCOPS to reconsider the multinational entity question and potentially request additional evidence.
What worked: The AAO found that having the beneficiary employed by the U.S. company's foreign branch (rather than a separate foreign entity) satisfies the 'same employer' requirement. The detailed job duties evidence, including a two-column chart and description of the beneficiary's role across six portfolio development stages, was found sufficient to establish managerial capacity as a function manager.
What failed: The Petitioner failed to adequately document its claimed affiliate relationship with a Russian entity needed to qualify as a multinational company. Key failures included: submitting only 4 of 16 pages of the Russian ownership document; providing a translation with only a stamp rather than a proper translator certification; and relying on a proxy agreement that contained a mutual-consent termination clause, undermining the claim of irrevocable voting control.
Takeaway: For EB-1C petitions relying on an affiliate relationship to prove multinational status, petitioners must provide complete, properly certified translations of all foreign corporate documents, submit the entire document (not excerpts), and ensure that proxy or voting agreements unambiguously establish the claimed level of control without contradictory termination provisions.
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 AAO found that having the beneficiary employed by the U.S
- company's foreign branch (rather than a separate foreign entity) satisfies the 'same employer' requirement
- The detailed job duties evidence, including a two-column chart and description of the beneficiary's role across six portfolio development stages, was found sufficient to establish managerial capacity as a function manager.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The Petitioner failed to adequately document its claimed affiliate relationship with a Russian entity needed to qualify as a multinational company
- Key failures included: submitting only 4 of 16 pages of the Russian ownership document
- providing a translation with only a stamp rather than a proper translator certification
- and relying on a proxy agreement that contained a mutual-consent termination clause, undermining the claim of irrevocable voting control.
Completed
I-140 filed
Manager of Latin America Portfolio for a library services company
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-02-23
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO withdrew the SCOPS denial because it was based on legal errors regarding qualifying relationships and inadequate review of managerial duties evidence, but remanded because the Petitioner failed to establish it qualifies as a multinational entity due to insufficient documentation of its claimed affiliate relationship with a Russian entity.
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.