Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO withdrew SCOPS' denial because it was conclusory, failed to analyze the specific evidence, and conflated managerial and executive capacity definitions. The matter was remanded for a new decision addressing all relevant factors including the nature of the petitioner's business and the foreign affiliate's continued operations in South Korea.
A U.S. lifestyle products distributor sought to permanently employ a beneficiary as its executive director under the EB-1C multinational executive classification. SCOPS denied the petition in a decision the AAO found to be largely conclusory, containing only a few sentences of actual analysis and improperly conflating the definitions of managerial and executive capacity. The AAO found that SCOPS over-relied on staffing levels, failed to assess the nature of the petitioner's business, and never addressed whether the foreign affiliate in South Korea continues to operate. Additionally, the AAO flagged unresolved inconsistencies between the company's claimed distribution activities and its small office lease describing only a fabric sales use. Because SCOPS did not adequately explain its reasoning or give the petitioner fair notice, the AAO remanded for a new, comprehensive decision.
What worked: The petitioner's 2023 and 2024 tax returns were sufficient to establish that the company is 'doing business' as required under the regulations, satisfying at least that threshold element.
What failed: The record lacked evidence corroborating the petitioner's claimed business activities—no contracts, sales records, or distribution agreements were submitted. The record also failed to address whether the South Korean affiliate continues to operate, and the lease agreement raised unresolved inconsistencies about the nature of the business. The denial itself was insufficiently reasoned, which triggered the remand.
Takeaway: For EB-1C petitions, petitioners should submit robust documentary evidence of business operations (contracts, purchase orders, distribution agreements) that confirms the company's described activities, and should proactively demonstrate that both the U.S. entity and foreign affiliate are actively conducting business, with clear organizational charts and subordinate staffing information to support an executive capacity claim.
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's 2023 and 2024 tax returns were sufficient to establish that the company is 'doing business' as required under the regulations, satisfying at least that threshold element.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The record lacked evidence corroborating the petitioner's claimed business activities—no contracts, sales records, or distribution agreements were submitted
- The record also failed to address whether the South Korean affiliate continues to operate, and the lease agreement raised unresolved inconsistencies about the nature of the business
- The denial itself was insufficiently reasoned, which triggered the remand.
Completed
I-140 filed
Executive director of a lifestyle products distribution company
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-03-31
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO withdrew SCOPS' denial because it was conclusory, failed to analyze the specific evidence, and conflated managerial and executive capacity definitions. The matter was remanded for a new decision addressing all relevant factors including the nature of the petitioner's business and the foreign affiliate's continued operations in South Korea.
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.