This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal and affirmed the denial because the Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary's U.S. position would be in a managerial capacity, specifically failing to show that the function she would manage (a single client relationship) was essential or core to the organization. The AAO did, however, withdraw the Director's separate finding of willful misrepresentation of material facts.
A software engineering company sought permanent residence for its Lead Project Manager under the EB-1C multinational manager/executive category. The Texas Service Center Director denied the petition, finding both that the Beneficiary's U.S. role was not managerial and that the Petitioner had willfully misrepresented material facts. The AAO affirmed the denial on the managerial capacity issue, determining that the Beneficiary's primary responsibility — managing the company's relationship with one client out of 18 or more — was not shown to be an essential or core function of the organization. The AAO also found an unresolved discrepancy between the petition's claim of 10 employees and later-submitted documents listing 16. The AAO did, however, reverse the Director's willful misrepresentation finding, concluding that the document deficiencies identified did not meet the legal threshold for willful and material misrepresentation.
What worked: The AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Director's willful misrepresentation finding was legally flawed — the documents deemed deficient were also deemed irrelevant by the Director, and irrelevant evidence cannot be 'material' for misrepresentation purposes.
What failed: The Petitioner failed to show that managing a single client relationship constituted an 'essential function' core to the overall organization. The Petitioner also failed to reconcile the discrepancy between claiming 10 employees on the petition form and later submitting documents showing 16 employees. No evidence established that the specific client was more critical to the company than any of its other 17+ clients.
Takeaway: For EB-1C function manager claims, it is not enough to show the beneficiary manages an important client or project — petitioners must clearly demonstrate that the function is core and essential to the entire organization, ideally with evidence showing how the function impacts all business units or is relied upon by senior leadership. Petitioners should also ensure consistency between all filed documents (e.g., employee counts) to avoid credibility issues.
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 agreed with the Petitioner that the Director's willful misrepresentation finding was legally flawed — the documents deemed deficient were also deemed irrelevant by the Director, and irrelevant evidence cannot be 'material' for misrepresentation purposes.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The Petitioner failed to show that managing a single client relationship constituted an 'essential function' core to the overall organization
- The Petitioner also failed to reconcile the discrepancy between claiming 10 employees on the petition form and later submitting documents showing 16 employees
- No evidence established that the specific client was more critical to the company than any of its other 17+ clients.
Organizational chart showing the Beneficiary overseeing subordinates — insufficient to establish function manager status because the function (a single client) was not shown to be essential to the organization
Employee list identifying 16 U.S. employees — created unresolved discrepancy with the petition form listing only 10 employees
JIRA tickets showing the Beneficiary instructing employees on corrective actions — did not establish that the client relationship managed constitutes an essential function core to the organization
Affidavits of employees present at USCIS site visit — found not to address the Beneficiary's managerial capacity or provide relevant factual details
Transcribed Skype conversation — found to be an edited version of the actual communication with formatting errors and missing information
Email correspondence — found to be an edited document with headings added by a third party
The Director's finding of willful misrepresentation of material facts was not supported — the identified document deficiencies did not rise to the level of willful and material misrepresentation, and the Director's own finding that the documents were not relevant meant they could not be material for misrepresentation purposes.
Completed
I-140 filed
Lead Project Manager at a software engineering company providing IT solutions to public and private sector clients
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2020-11-27
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal and affirmed the denial because the Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary's U.S. position would be in a managerial capacity, specifically failing to show that the function she would manage (a single client relationship) was essential or core to the organization. The AAO did, however, withdraw the Director's separate finding of willful misrepresentation of material facts.
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