This appeal was not successful at this stage
All motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed. Although the AAO accepted the prior motions as timely due to a COVID-era deadline extension and courier delay, the new and reconsidered evidence still failed to establish the Beneficiary's managerial capacity, qualifying foreign employment, or the required corporate relationship.
The AAO considered the latest round of motions to reopen and reconsider filed by a jewelry wholesale company seeking EB-1C classification for its proposed president/general manager. The AAO corrected a prior error in the filing deadline calculation—accepting the prior motions as timely under COVID-19 extensions plus the three-day mail rule—but found the substantive evidence still insufficient. New letters clarified that customs invoices bearing the Beneficiary's name do not establish his personal handling of operational duties, and travel itineraries boosted general credibility, but the company still could not reconcile conflicting job duty descriptions or demonstrate the Beneficiary's supervision of professional-level employees. The sales/marketing manager's Indian bachelor of commerce degree did not meet the U.S. baccalaureate equivalency standard, undercutting the argument that the subordinate position was 'professional.' The petitioner also failed to address the additional grounds for revocation—qualifying foreign employment and corporate relationship—making eligibility impossible to establish.
What worked: Letters from industry peers successfully rebutted the prior adverse finding that the Beneficiary personally processed customs invoices, and travel itineraries added some credibility to the petitioner's general account.
What failed: The company could not reconcile two conflicting versions of the Beneficiary's proposed job duties; it failed to show that its subordinate sales/marketing manager held a U.S. baccalaureate equivalency or performed sufficiently professional duties; and it did not address the revocation grounds relating to the qualifying corporate relationship and the managerial/executive nature of the Beneficiary's foreign employment.
Takeaway: For EB-1C petitions, petitioners must comprehensively address all grounds for denial in each motion or they will be deemed waived; inconsistencies in job duty descriptions must be resolved with independent, objective evidence before filing, and the qualifications of subordinate employees should be verified against U.S. equivalency standards.
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
- Letters from industry peers successfully rebutted the prior adverse finding that the Beneficiary personally processed customs invoices, and travel itineraries added some credibility to the petitioner's general account.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The company could not reconcile two conflicting versions of the Beneficiary's proposed job duties
- it failed to show that its subordinate sales/marketing manager held a U.S
- baccalaureate equivalency or performed sufficiently professional duties
- and it did not address the revocation grounds relating to the qualifying corporate relationship and the managerial/executive nature of the Beneficiary's foreign employment.
Letters from presidents of five other wholesale jewelry businesses explaining that customs invoices bear the owner's name due to personal liability for shipping duties, rebutting the prior finding that the Beneficiary personally processed customs bills.
Travel invoices and itineraries showing sales representatives attended jewelry trade shows, bolstering general credibility of the Petitioner's account.
Federal income tax returns for 2019-20 and 2020-21 as they did not address timeliness or the grounds for revocation.
Two conflicting versions of the Beneficiary's proposed job duties that were not reconciled with independent, objective evidence.
Organizational chart that did not specifically describe the sales/marketing manager's duties or clarify the Beneficiary's supervisory role.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook listing for sales managers, as the Petitioner's job description omitted key duties listed therein.
Indian bachelor of commerce degree held by the sales/marketing manager, which per EDGE typically reflects only three years of study rather than the four years required for a U.S. baccalaureate equivalency.
Petitioner's arguments regarding the professional nature of the subordinate sales/marketing manager position, as they failed to establish a U.S. baccalaureate-level requirement.
AAO had previously used an incorrect 60-day filing deadline instead of 63 days (60 days + 3 days for regular mail service under 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b)) during the COVID-19 filing extension period.
AAO had incorrectly relied on Matter of Liadov to reject timeliness, but the correct 63-day deadline placed the courier receipt four days before the deadline, distinguishing the case from Liadov.
Completed
I-140 filed
President/General Manager of a jewelry wholesale company
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-10-06
AAO decision — Dismissed
All motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed. Although the AAO accepted the prior motions as timely due to a COVID-era deadline extension and courier delay, the new and reconsidered evidence still failed to establish the Beneficiary's managerial capacity, qualifying foreign employment, or the required corporate relationship.
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