Success Stories From 2017

We won a case following a Request for Evidence that requested additional proof of the relationship between the entities, verification of employment abroad in a managerial role for one continuous year prior to entering the US, as well as additional details of the proposed managerial position in the U.S. Initially we submitted documentation to establish the relationship between the U.S. and foreign entity that included a share certificate, an organizational chart to show the relationship and owner interest as well as a Master Services Agreement that outlined the working relationship between the two entities. In response to the RFE, we submitted the Articles of Incorporation which indicated the share owner interest as well as the stock transfer ledger. In response to Service’s question regarding employment abroad for one full year, we re-submitted the pay vouchers for the full year as well as a letter from a representative from the foreign entity confirming the beneficiary’s employment for the relevant period of time.  We addressed the question regarding the managerial role in the U.S. by supplying the full names, job titles, job duties description, educational level and salary amount for each subordinate as well as a detailed organizational chart showing the hierarchy, a very detailed job duties chart outlining each managerial task and the percentage of time allotted to each task as well as a day-to-day breakdown of a typical day for the beneficiary in his role as a Computer and Information System Manager.

We won a case for an applicant following receipt of a Request for Evidence. We submitted evidence to show that the beneficiary qualified for the category having published scholarly articles, authored a book chapter and acted as the judge of her peers. We noted the impact factor for the journals where her work was published and provided citations details. We provided evidence to show that she was a member of an editorial board. The RFE noted Service’s request for confirmation of the permanent job offer. The university’s employee handbook noted that the position was in fact “permanent” and renewable indefinitely. We provided a letter from the university that also confirmed her position was in fact permanent in nature.

We won a case for an applicant who primarily served as a function manager, but also managed a few professionals. We provided extensive details regarding the job duties of the beneficiary for both the foreign entity position as well as the proposed US position. We outlined the proposed duties in detail and assigned a percentage to each task indicating how much time was allotted to complete the task. We also provided the names, titles and job duty descriptions of staff members that would relieve the beneficiary of non-managerial tasks. The beneficiary was an integral part of the U.S. operations and worked closely with the Petitioner’s CIO and CEO. We were able to show that the applicant had discretionary managerial decision making authority that significantly impacted the U.S. operations.

We won a case for an applicant following a Request for Evidence. Initially, we had submitted substantial documentation to show that the Petitioner qualified for the classification based on his original contributions, authorship of scholarly articles and judging of his research peers. Based on the evidence submitted, Service noted that sufficient evidence was presented to prove authorship of scholarly articles as well as judging of research peers. We had provided copies of the Petitioner’s publications as well as the significant number of citations. The journals where Petitioner’s work was published had average to high impact factors. Petitioner was a member of an editorial board as well as a reviewer for a multitude of international publications. We submitted documentary evidence of his work as a reviewer which included an invitation to the editorial board as well as copies of the requests to review manuscripts for several prestigious scientific journals. Service issued an RFE requesting additional documentary evidence to show that Petitioner’s research contributions were “original” and of major significance. We provided additional reference letters from leading experts who noted their own use of Petitioner’s inventions. We also provided proof of the application of Petitioner’s invention such as internal memos, letters and emails.