Date of Decision: September 26, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Retail Management (Gas Stations and Convenience Stores)
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Chief Executive Officer
Field: Retail Management (Gas Stations and Convenience Stores)
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The Petitioner, a company operating gas stations and convenience stores, sought to employ the Beneficiary as its Chief Executive Officer under the EB-1 classification for multinational executives or managers. This visa classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity.
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. Furthermore, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. On appeal, the Petitioner argued that the Director failed to properly assess the Beneficiary’s former managerial capacity abroad and contended that the Beneficiary acts as a personnel manager overseeing two subordinate managers in the U.S. Upon de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal.
Key Issues
The primary issues in this case included:
Managerial Capacity Abroad: The Director determined that the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. The job descriptions provided were overly vague and did not clearly outline the Beneficiary’s day-to-day managerial responsibilities.
Managerial Capacity in the United States: The Director also found that the Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity in the United States. The evidence provided suggested that the Beneficiary’s role might include non-managerial operational tasks.
Discrepancies in Employment History: The Petitioner presented conflicting information about the duration and nature of the Beneficiary’s employment abroad, which raised doubts about the legitimacy of the claimed managerial role.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) made several key findings:
Insufficient Detail in Job Descriptions: The Petitioner provided a job description for the Beneficiary’s role abroad that was generic and did not specify the actual managerial tasks performed. The descriptions were broad and could apply to any manager in any industry, failing to demonstrate that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in high-level managerial duties.
Inadequate Evidence of Managerial Capacity: The AAO found that the evidence did not adequately support the claim that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity either abroad or in the United States. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation of the Beneficiary’s day-to-day responsibilities or his authority over other employees.
Discrepancies in Employment Timeline: The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary served as managing director for more than nine years before transferring to the United States, but other evidence suggested a shorter duration of employment abroad. This inconsistency further undermined the Petitioner’s case.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered in this decision included:
Organizational Charts and Job Descriptions: The organizational charts and job descriptions provided by the Petitioner were found to be inconsistent and insufficiently detailed, failing to establish that the Beneficiary’s role was primarily managerial.
Employment History: The Petitioner submitted documents related to the Beneficiary’s employment history, but these were found to be inconsistent and did not clearly support the claimed managerial role.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing clear, specific, and consistent evidence when petitioning for an EB-1 classification. The Petitioner’s failure to resolve discrepancies in the Beneficiary’s employment history, coupled with the lack of detailed job descriptions, were critical factors in the dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad or that he would be employed in such a capacity in the United States, leading to the denial of the petition.
