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 a managerial capacity in the U.S. The job descriptions were inconsistent, vague, and overlapped with subordinate duties, preventing a finding of primarily managerial work.
A newspaper publishing company sought to permanently employ a foreign worker as its Pre Press Manager under the EB-1C multinational executive or manager classification. The Texas Service Center denied the petition on grounds that neither the proposed U.S. employment nor the prior foreign employment was demonstrated to be managerial. On appeal, the AAO focused solely on the U.S. employment issue, finding it dispositive. The petitioner submitted multiple contradictory job descriptions across filings, failed to provide specific time allocations per duty, and presented subordinate job duties that were identical to the beneficiary's own duties — undermining any claim of function management. The AAO also found that staffing evidence (W-2s, organizational charts) was internally inconsistent and could not confirm adequate support staff to relieve the beneficiary from operational tasks. The appeal was dismissed.
What failed: 1. Multiple inconsistent job descriptions across the initial petition, RFE response, and motion to reopen made it impossible to determine what the beneficiary would actually do. 2. The beneficiary's listed job duties were identical to those of claimed subordinates, directly undermining the managerial/function manager claim. 3. Staffing evidence (W-2s, organizational charts) contradicted each other and could not establish that sufficient support staff existed to relieve the beneficiary from non-managerial work.
Takeaway: For EB-1C petitions, petitioners must provide a single, detailed, consistent job description with specific time allocations per duty from the outset, and ensure that the beneficiary's duties are clearly distinguishable from those of subordinates. Inconsistencies between filings will severely undermine credibility and are very difficult to overcome on appeal.
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
- Multiple inconsistent job descriptions across the initial petition, RFE response, and motion to reopen made it impossible to determine what the beneficiary would actually do
- The beneficiary's listed job duties were identical to those of claimed subordinates, directly undermining the managerial/function manager claim
- Staffing evidence (W-2s, organizational charts) contradicted each other and could not establish that sufficient support staff existed to relieve the beneficiary from non-managerial work.
Multiple inconsistent job descriptions that did not align with each other or explain the discrepancies
Organizational charts that contradicted the initial supporting statement regarding subordinate employees and hierarchy
W-2 wage statements that corroborated far fewer subordinates than claimed
Time allocation claims (e.g., 60% managing function) unsupported by specific duty breakdowns
Third-party printing agreements, invoices, and sales reference documents submitted on appeal without explanation of relevance
Job duties for the beneficiary that were identical to those of claimed subordinates, undermining the managerial claim
Motion to reopen with yet another different job description inconsistent with prior submissions
Completed
I-140 filed
Pre Press Manager at a newspaper publishing company
Completed
Texas Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2017-06-07
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity in the U.S. The job descriptions were inconsistent, vague, and overlapped with subordinate duties, preventing a finding of primarily managerial work.
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