Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO withdrew the Director's denial and remanded the case because the Director failed to adequately analyze the first prong of the statutory definition of managerial capacity — specifically whether the Beneficiary managed 'the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization' in his role as regional manufacturing strategy manager. The AAO ordered issuance of a new RFE to allow the Petitioner to submit organizational charts and other relevant evidence.
A food services company petitioned to permanently transfer its Beneficiary to the U.S. as a plant manager under the EB-1C multinational manager classification. The Nebraska Service Center Director denied the petition, finding the Beneficiary's foreign employment did not qualify as managerial. On appeal, the AAO found the Director's analysis incomplete: the decision focused narrowly on job duties and subordinates but never addressed the critical first prong — whether the Beneficiary actually managed an organization, department, subdivision, function, or component thereof — in his role as regional manufacturing strategy manager. Compounding the error, the prior RFE also failed to request key evidence like organizational charts for the relevant role. The AAO withdrew the denial and remanded with instructions to issue a new RFE and enter a new decision after receiving the missing evidence.
What worked: Evidence of personnel management activity was found at least partially consistent with the second and third prongs of the managerial capacity definition, keeping the door open for the petition on remand.
What failed: The organizational charts submitted pertained to the wrong position (continuous improvement manager, not regional manufacturing strategy manager) and did not show where the qualifying role fit within the foreign company's overall management hierarchy. The record lacked any evidence — such as relevant org charts or descriptions of the management structure — that could establish the Beneficiary managed a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization in the role at issue.
Takeaway: For EB-1C petitions, always submit detailed organizational charts and a clear description of the management hierarchy specifically for each qualifying foreign position; a document that covers the wrong role or time period will not satisfy the first prong of the managerial capacity test, no matter how strong the rest of the evidence is.
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
- Evidence of personnel management activity was found at least partially consistent with the second and third prongs of the managerial capacity definition, keeping the door open for the petition on remand.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The organizational charts submitted pertained to the wrong position (continuous improvement manager, not regional manufacturing strategy manager) and did not show where the qualifying role fit within the foreign company's overall management hierarchy
- The record lacked any evidence — such as relevant org charts or descriptions of the management structure — that could establish the Beneficiary managed a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization in the role at issue.
Evidence showing the Beneficiary's position as regional manufacturing strategy manager involved some level of personnel management, consistent with INA § 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) and (iii).
Two organizational charts depicting the Beneficiary as production manager and project manager on the 'Pavillion Project Team' — the AAO found these pertained to the continuous improvement manager role, not the regional manufacturing strategy manager role, and were therefore not relevant to the qualifying period.
Evidence regarding the continuous improvement manager position, as the record did not show the Beneficiary held that role for at least one year before departure in 2021.
The Director failed to adequately analyze the first prong of the statutory definition of managerial capacity under INA § 101(a)(44)(A)(i) — whether the Beneficiary managed 'the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization' as regional manufacturing strategy manager.
The Director's RFE did not request relevant evidence such as organizational charts or descriptions of the foreign entity's management hierarchy needed to evaluate the first prong.
The Director focused analysis almost entirely on job duties and subordinates' educational levels without assessing the full four-prong statutory definition of managerial capacity.
Completed
I-140 filed
Plant manager / regional manufacturing strategy manager in the food services industry
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2025-02-26
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO withdrew the Director's denial and remanded the case because the Director failed to adequately analyze the first prong of the statutory definition of managerial capacity — specifically whether the Beneficiary managed 'the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization' in his role as regional manufacturing strategy manager. The AAO ordered issuance of a new RFE to allow the Petitioner to submit organizational charts and other relevant evidence.
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