Date of Decision: October 21, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Aircraft Maintenance and Repair Services
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Chief Revenue Officer
Field: Aircraft Maintenance and Repair Services
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Sustained
Case Overview
The petitioner, a provider of aircraft maintenance and repair services, sought to employ the beneficiary as its chief revenue officer under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.
The Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer. The director reasoned that the beneficiary was employed directly by the petitioner while working abroad rather than by a separate foreign entity. Additionally, the director noted that the beneficiary was paid by the petitioner while employed abroad, raising concerns about whether the beneficiary met the foreign employment requirement under EB-1C regulations.
On appeal, the petitioner argued that the regulations allow for a beneficiary to qualify even if directly employed by a U.S. multinational entity while working abroad, as long as all other eligibility criteria are met. Upon de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office determined that the petitioner met its burden of proof and sustained the appeal.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity within a multinational organization.
The director’s decision was based on the interpretation that the beneficiary must be employed by a separate foreign entity to qualify. However, the petitioner argued that the statute allows for an employee of a multinational U.S. company to qualify if they were employed outside the United States for at least one year within the three years preceding their entry as a nonimmigrant and will continue working for the same employer or an affiliate in a managerial or executive role.
The Administrative Appeals Office reviewed the statutory and regulatory language and found no requirement that a qualifying foreign employer must be a separate legal entity. Instead, the primary focus is on the continuity of the beneficiary’s employment within the same multinational organization.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office concluded that the director’s decision misinterpreted the statute and regulations. Key findings included:
- The beneficiary was continuously employed within the petitioner’s multinational organization for at least one year in the three years preceding his entry into the United States.
- The petitioner directly employed the beneficiary outside the United States from January 2019 until his entry into the United States in June 2021 under an L-1A intracompany transfer to serve as chief revenue officer.
- The statutory and regulatory language supports the transfer of an overseas-based employee who is directly employed by a U.S. petitioner within a multinational organization, provided all other eligibility requirements are met.
- The petitioner demonstrated that it operates in the United States and at least one other country, meeting the multinational organization requirement.
Given these findings, the appeal was sustained, and the petition was approved.
Supporting Evidence
- Organizational documentation confirming the petitioner’s multinational operations
- Employment records verifying the beneficiary’s position abroad and in the United States
- Payroll and financial documents demonstrating the petitioner’s global presence
- Job descriptions detailing the beneficiary’s executive responsibilities in both locations
- Corporate records confirming the petitioner’s ongoing business activities internationally
Additional Notes
The Administrative Appeals Office emphasized that the primary purpose of the EB-1C classification is to facilitate the permanent transfer of key managers and executives within multinational organizations. The decision reaffirmed that the statutory language does not require a separate foreign entity, as long as the beneficiary was employed in a qualifying capacity within the same multinational organization.
Additionally, the decision highlighted that a director must provide a complete and well-reasoned analysis of all evidence before denying a petition. In this case, the director’s decision did not fully consider the statutory intent behind EB-1C classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal sustained.
Reasoning: The petitioner successfully established that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying executive capacity within a multinational organization and would continue serving in an executive role in the United States. The director’s decision was withdrawn due to a misinterpretation of statutory and regulatory requirements.