Date of Decision: June 28, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Architectural Engineering Services
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Associate Director
Field: Architectural Engineering Services
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Motion Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, an architectural engineering services company, sought to employ the beneficiary as its Associate Director under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.
The Texas Service Center denied the petition in April 2023, determining that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer, (2) that the foreign entity employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, and (3) that the petitioner would employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States.
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner’s appeal in November 2023, upholding the Director’s finding that the petitioner had not established that it would employ the beneficiary in a managerial capacity. Given that this determination alone was sufficient to deny the petition, the AAO did not analyze the other two grounds for denial.
The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the AAO misapplied the law and failed to properly evaluate the evidence. However, the AAO found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient legal or factual grounds to warrant reconsideration. The motion was dismissed.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was whether the petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner claimed that the beneficiary would serve as a function manager, overseeing the facade engineering function within the organization. However, the AAO determined that the petitioner did not adequately define the function, provide sufficient evidence of the beneficiary’s discretionary authority, or establish that he would primarily manage rather than perform the function.
The petitioner also asserted that the beneficiary would oversee a team of 35 managerial and professional employees. However, the organizational chart and other evidence contradicted this claim, showing that the U.S. entity had only two subordinates under the beneficiary, neither of whom were at a managerial level. Additionally, the petitioner did not provide documentation clarifying the role of the foreign affiliate’s staff in supporting the U.S. operations.
USCIS Findings
The AAO determined that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to establish that the beneficiary would be employed as a function manager. The petitioner failed to clearly define the facade engineering function, did not provide sufficient evidence of subordinate employees performing non-qualifying tasks, and lacked documentation proving that the beneficiary’s role would primarily be managerial rather than operational.
Additionally, the petitioner did not substantiate that the beneficiary had full discretionary authority over the function, as required for function managers under Matter of G-Inc. (AAO 2017).
Supporting Evidence
- Organizational chart indicating the structure of the U.S. and foreign entities.
- Internal emails between the beneficiary and his subordinates.
- Performance appraisal documents related to the beneficiary’s role.
- General descriptions of the facade engineering function, lacking clear definitions.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that simply labeling a role as “function manager” does not establish eligibility for EB-1C classification. Petitioners must provide substantial documentary evidence demonstrating that the function is clearly defined, that the beneficiary acts at a senior level, and that they primarily manage rather than perform the function.
The AAO also reiterated that a motion to reconsider must demonstrate a legal or factual error in the prior decision. Since the petitioner did not present any new legal arguments or evidence that would change the outcome, the motion was dismissed.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Motion to reconsider dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not demonstrate that the beneficiary would serve in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity as required for EB-1C classification. The AAO found no legal or factual errors in its prior decision and denied the motion.
