Date of Decision: October 31, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Mining Equipment Sales and Distribution
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Chief Executive Officer
Field: Mining Equipment Sales and Distribution
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a mining equipment sales and distribution business, sought to employ the beneficiary as its Chief Executive Officer under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner appealed the decision, arguing that the Director failed to properly consider the totality of the evidence.
Key Issues
- Employment in an Executive Capacity: The Director determined that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary would primarily perform executive duties. The job description provided included tasks such as market penetration, client acquisition, and sales strategy, which were seen as operational rather than executive in nature. Additionally, the petitioner did not demonstrate that it had sufficient staff to relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties, as the records showed only two employees besides the beneficiary at the time of filing.
- Insufficient Staffing: The Director’s decision also noted that the petitioner’s staffing levels at the time of filing were insufficient to support the beneficiary’s claimed executive role. The petitioner claimed to employ four individuals, but evidence showed only two employees, which undermined the claim that the beneficiary would oversee a large team, as indicated in the job description.
USCIS Findings
Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director did not provide an adequate analysis of the evidence, thus failing to afford the petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision. The AAO withdrew the Director’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the Director to request any additional evidence deemed necessary and to issue a new decision.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted job descriptions, employee records, and other related documents. However, the AAO determined that the evidence was insufficient to conclusively establish the beneficiary’s executive role and the company’s staffing situation.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing a detailed analysis when denying a petition, ensuring that petitioners understand why the evidence submitted does not meet the required burden of proof.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review. The petitioner will be given the opportunity to provide additional evidence to support the claim that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
