This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States. The job description was too vague, the staffing structure was inadequately documented, and inconsistencies in organizational charts undermined the claim.
A company seeking to permanently employ a Beneficiary as its Executive Director in the wholesale and retail of customized industrial pneumatic equipment had its EB-1C petition denied by SCOPS and then dismissed on appeal by the AAO. The AAO found that the job description was overly vague and lacked the specific daily tasks and time-allocation percentages requested in the RFE. The organizational chart submitted in response to the RFE reflected post-filing personnel restructuring that could not be used to establish eligibility as of the petition's filing date. Additionally, inconsistencies between W-2 records, email signatures, and organizational charts further undermined the Petitioner's credibility. As a result, the AAO could not determine that the Beneficiary would primarily perform executive duties rather than operational tasks.
What failed: The job description failed to provide specific daily tasks and percentage time allocations as required. The Petitioner submitted an updated organizational chart reflecting post-filing changes instead of establishing the structure at the time of filing. Inconsistencies between W-2 records, email signatures, and organizational chart listings raised credibility concerns that were not resolved with independent evidence.
Takeaway: EB-1C petitioners must provide highly specific, granular descriptions of the beneficiary's daily executive duties and ensure that all organizational evidence — charts, job descriptions, and subordinate duty descriptions — accurately reflects the structure at the time of filing. Post-filing restructuring cannot rescue a deficient record and may introduce harmful inconsistencies.
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
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The job description failed to provide specific daily tasks and percentage time allocations as required
- The Petitioner submitted an updated organizational chart reflecting post-filing changes instead of establishing the structure at the time of filing
- Inconsistencies between W-2 records, email signatures, and organizational chart listings raised credibility concerns that were not resolved with independent evidence.
Completed
I-140 filed
Executive Director of a company engaged in wholesale and retail of customized industrial pneumatic equipment
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-02-26
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States. The job description was too vague, the staffing structure was inadequately documented, and inconsistencies in organizational charts undermined the claim.
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.