Date of Decision: April 30, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Educational Products Export and Retail Franchise Management
Petitioner Information
Profession: Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Field: Educational Products Export and Retail Franchise Management
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, an operator of an ice cream franchise and exporter of educational products, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) under the EB-1 classification for multinational executives or managers. The Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. Additionally, the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year prior to his entry into the United States. The petitioner appealed the decision, arguing that the Director overlooked key evidence and failed to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Key Issues
The denial was based on several critical issues:
U.S. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity: The Director determined that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. The job descriptions provided were too vague and generic, lacking specific details about the day-to-day responsibilities of the beneficiary. The petitioner also failed to show that there were sufficient subordinate employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing non-managerial tasks.
Employment Abroad in a Managerial or Executive Capacity: The Director found that the petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to establish that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding his entry into the United States.
Organizational Structure and Staffing: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that it had a sufficient number of employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational tasks. The organizational charts provided were inconsistent, and the evidence of staffing levels did not support the petitioner’s claim that the beneficiary would primarily perform managerial duties.
USCIS Findings:
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) upheld the Director’s decision to deny the petition. The AAO agreed that the petitioner did not sufficiently establish the beneficiary’s managerial or executive role in the United States. The AAO found that the job descriptions were repetitive, general, and did not clearly outline the beneficiary’s managerial responsibilities. Additionally, the AAO noted that the petitioner did not provide adequate evidence of the beneficiary’s managerial or executive capacity during his employment abroad. The lack of clarity regarding the beneficiary’s actual duties, combined with insufficient staffing to support a managerial role, were key factors in the denial.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered in the decision included:
Job Descriptions: The job descriptions provided by the petitioner were vague and lacked specific details about the managerial duties the beneficiary would perform in the United States.
Organizational Charts: The organizational charts submitted were inconsistent and did not clearly demonstrate that the beneficiary would be relieved from non-managerial tasks.
Staffing Levels: The evidence provided did not sufficiently prove that the petitioner had enough staff to support the beneficiary in a purely managerial or executive role.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that detailed and specific evidence is crucial when applying for an EB-1 classification. The petitioner’s inability to clearly establish the managerial nature of the beneficiary’s role, coupled with inconsistencies in the organizational structure and staffing, were significant factors leading to the denial of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not successfully demonstrate that the beneficiary met the requirements for employment in a managerial or executive capacity, either in the United States or abroad.
