Date of Decision: January 30, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Online Merchandise Retail
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Field: Online Merchandise Retail
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, A-G- Corp., is an online merchandise retailer that sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) under the EB-1 immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. This classification permits U.S. employers to transfer qualified foreign employees to the U.S. to work in a managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner argued that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in an executive capacity and would continue to fulfill similar duties in the United States.
Key Issues
The key issues in this case centered around whether the beneficiary had been employed abroad, and would be employed in the U.S., in a managerial or executive capacity. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed in such a capacity both abroad and in the United States. The Director’s decision cited insufficient evidence regarding the nature of the beneficiary’s duties and the complexity of the U.S. company’s organizational structure.
USCIS Findings
Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director’s analysis was incomplete and did not adequately consider all relevant factors, such as the size and staffing of the U.S. organization. Specifically, the Director erroneously referred to the beneficiary’s title and failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the beneficiary performed non-executive tasks. The AAO also highlighted deficiencies in the evidence provided by the petitioner to demonstrate that the U.S. company had been “doing business” for the required period before filing the petition.
Supporting Evidence
The AAO noted that the petitioner’s job description for the beneficiary lacked detailed information about the specific tasks and responsibilities involved in the role of CEO. The record also contained sales invoices to establish that the company was doing business, but the earliest invoice dated September 2013 did not meet the requirement of one year of doing business prior to filing in August 2014.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that the Director’s decision did not fully explain the reasons for denial, thus depriving the petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to contest the determination. The matter was remanded for further proceedings, with instructions for the Director to request additional evidence as needed and issue a new decision based on a thorough analysis.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review. The petitioner was provided with an opportunity to submit additional evidence to address the deficiencies noted by the AAO.