EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives) USCIS Appeal Review – Chief Executive Officer (CEO) – Diamond Import and Wholesale FEB272023_01B4203

Date of Decision: February 27, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Diamond Import and Wholesale


Beneficiary Information

Profession: Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Field: Diamond Import and Wholesale
Nationality: Not Specified


Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed


Case Overview

The petitioner, an importer and wholesaler of diamonds, sought to employ the beneficiary as its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that it had been doing business for at least one year prior to the petition’s filing date, that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States, or that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity.

Key Issues

The Director’s denial focused on three primary concerns: the petitioner’s failure to demonstrate that it had been doing business for at least one year before filing the petition, the lack of evidence showing that the beneficiary’s roles, both abroad and in the U.S., met the criteria for executive capacity, and inconsistencies in the record that undermined the credibility of the petitioner’s claims.

USCIS Findings

Upon de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) agreed with the Director’s findings. The AAO noted that while the petitioner provided some evidence of business activity, the beneficiary’s job descriptions, both abroad and in the U.S., were vague and lacked specific details necessary to establish that his duties were primarily executive in nature. The AAO also found discrepancies in the record, such as inconsistencies in the beneficiary’s resume and job titles, which further weakened the petitioner’s case.

Supporting Evidence

The petitioner submitted various documents, including job descriptions, organizational charts, and business contracts. However, the AAO determined that these documents did not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the executive nature of the beneficiary’s duties or the complexity of the petitioner’s organizational structure.

Additional Notes

The AAO concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish the beneficiary’s qualifying executive role abroad. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the petitioner was unable to demonstrate the beneficiary’s eligibility for the EB-1C classification.


Conclusion

Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the beneficiary’s qualifying executive role abroad.

Download the Full Petition Review Here


Emmanuel Uwakwe
Emmanuel Uwakwe

I studied Electrical and Electronics Engineering and have a huge passion for tech related stuff :)

Articles: 1543

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *