A recent ruling from the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has clarified that the key to a successful application for an EB-1C visa—designated for multinational executives and managers—goes beyond impressive job titles such as “CEO” or “President.” Rather, the focus is on the actual responsibilities and the organizational structure of the applicant’s role.
In a notable case, a female executive from a Chinese company took on the role of CEO for a U.S. subsidiary that deals with the importation of gemstones and minerals. Alongside her leadership at the U.S. firm, she continued to oversee the import and export departments back in China. The U.S. company sought to apply for her EB-1C visa, expecting the title would facilitate her green card approval.
Despite having met the company’s operational timeline requirements, complications arose during the review of her management responsibilities and the organizational structure she was said to be part of. The AAO overturned one reason for the denial of her application but sent the case back for further analysis rather than issuing an immediate approval for her green card.
One critical prerequisite for the EB-1C application is that the U.S. employer must have been actively conducting business in the country for at least one year prior to submitting an immigration petition. Although the U.S. company was established in 2013, it faced a setback when a previous accountant failed to report state taxes, leading the State of California to suspend its business status. The company’s operational status was restored on July 21, 2022, and the application was filed on July 12, 2023. This raised questions from immigration officials regarding compliance with the stipulated year of active business post-restoration.
Fortunately, during the appeal process, the applicant provided utility bills and tax documents that demonstrated the company’s operations did not cease during the period of inactivity. The AAO accepted this evidence as proof of ongoing business operations and ruled that the previous assessment claiming the company had not been operational for a year was unfounded.
However, the immigration officials expressed concerns regarding the organizational structure claimed by the U.S. company. The business, comprising four distinct departments—eCommerce, key clients and freight, local store development, and gem exhibition development—was described in such a way that raised doubts. Each department was said to have a manager along with one to two employees. Yet, the immigration office questioned if this small scale provided sufficient support for the CEO’s operational responsibilities. Questions surfaced about whether she was genuinely managing these departments or handling day-to-day tasks such as order processing and customer service.
For instance, in examining the eCommerce manager’s role, the company claimed this position included overseeing online sales strategies and digital marketing campaigns, along with responsibilities in website design and operation. However, the organizational chart indicated that the only subordinate was a logistics and customer service personnel whose role centered around order processing—no documentation existed for the design and production teams mentioned in the responsibilities.
This discrepancy led the AAO to question the reliability of the entire management structure outlined by the company. According to the AAO, while a small organizational scale does not inherently disqualify an applicant for executive status, employers are still responsible for providing clear, objective evidence that demonstrates actual department functions and that the applicant is indeed commands and governs rather than merely performing operational tasks.
Moreover, the AAO noted that the company’s subsequent expansion would not retroactively address the inadequacies present at the time of the application. Records indicated the U.S. company only evolved its organizational hierarchy after acquiring another company’s assets in September 2023, while the EB-1C application had already been submitted in July of the same year.
In light of this, the AAO emphasized that applicants must meet all conditions at the time their applications are submitted and maintain those standards throughout the adjudication process. Therefore, the employer had to validate that the applicant held a qualifying executive position as of July 2023. Only upon confirming that the applicant met the qualifications at the time of application would the immigration authorities proceed to assess whether the applicant’s position remained valid after the company’s organizational restructuring.
At the same time, the applicant argued that she continued to oversee the import and export division managers based in China. Even when multinational executives can supervise overseas employees under certain conditions, the crux of the matter centers on who these overseas employees service and whether their work genuinely supports the U.S. entity’s operations.
A focal point of scrutiny was the extent to which the Chinese team supported the U.S. company versus how much the American operations served the Chinese parent company. The AAO referenced precedents indicating that when evaluating the management functions of multinational entities, it’s essential to consider not just the number of domestic employees but also the work contributions of overseas technical, sales, and administrative personnel, particularly if they assist in the business development within the Americas.
In this specific case, the evidence suggests that the primary, if not the sole function of the U.S. entity, appeared to be facilitating sales and logistics for the parent company overseas.
Consequently, the AAO mandated further investigation by immigration authorities to establish whether the Chinese import and export departments were indeed dedicated to advancing the U.S. company’s interests, as well as to ascertain if the applicant held true authority over those teams.
The EB-1C pathway serves as a top-tier U.S. immigration procedure for qualified multinational executives and managers, permitting eligible companies to transfer foreign executives or managers to the U.S. under sanctioned roles. Applicants are typically required to have spent at least one year within the past three years working for a qualifying organization in a managerial or executive capacity outside of the United States. There must be a legitimate relationship among the U.S. employer and the foreign enterprise, such as parent and subsidiary or affiliate, with the U.S. firm conducting business for at least a year to meet immigration regulations.
This case serves as a timely reminder for organizations looking to secure a green card through the EB-1C route. Merely showcasing a sophisticated organizational chart and holding the title of “CEO” may not suffice. Immigration officials will meticulously scrutinize not only the titles but also how the company operates and the actual responsibilities shouldered by the applicant on a daily basis.