Date of Decision: March 15, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Cellular Phone Retail
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Controller
Field: Cellular Phone Retail
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a cellular phone retailer, sought to employ the beneficiary as its controller under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the U.S. in an executive capacity and that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) upheld the Director’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider.
Key Issues
The primary issues identified included the failure to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role in the U.S. met the statutory definition of executive capacity, a disqualifying three-year break in the continuity of the beneficiary’s employment within the petitioner’s multinational organization, and the failure to establish a qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities.
USCIS Findings
The AAO determined that the petitioner did not meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the U.S. as claimed. The AAO noted inconsistencies and inadequately supported assertions regarding the beneficiary’s intended duties and level of authority. Furthermore, the AAO emphasized a three-year break in the beneficiary’s employment, which disqualified him from meeting the statutory foreign employment requirement. The AAO also found that the petitioner failed to establish a qualifying relationship with the claimed foreign affiliate, citing inconsistencies in the evidence of ownership for both the U.S. and foreign entities.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner attempted to clarify inconsistencies in the record, including typographical errors in job descriptions and differences in organizational charts submitted at different stages. However, these explanations were insufficient to address the key issues raised by the AAO, such as the failure to demonstrate the beneficiary’s executive capacity and the disqualifying break in employment continuity. The AAO also highlighted discrepancies in the ownership evidence, which undermined the petitioner’s claim of a qualifying relationship.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that the petitioner’s explanations and additional submissions did not demonstrate that the AAO’s prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The petitioner’s motion to reconsider was dismissed because it failed to establish that the previous decision was incorrect based on the evidence available at the time.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider was dismissed. The AAO upheld the decision to deny the petition, citing the petitioner’s failure to meet the burden of proof required for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
