Date of Decision: July 12, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Grocery/Convenience Store Operations
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Controller
Field: Grocery/Convenience Store Operations
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Motion Outcome: Motion to Reopen and Motion to Reconsider Dismissed
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a grocery and convenience store operator, sought to employ the beneficiary as its Controller under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.
The Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer, its ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage, that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, and that the petitioner would employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States.
The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider, but the Director dismissed both motions, finding that the petitioner failed to submit new, material evidence or identify any legal errors in the denial. The petitioner then filed an appeal, which was reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Office.
Upon de novo review, the AAO determined that the petitioner did not provide sufficient new evidence to warrant reopening the case. The AAO also found that the petitioner’s motion to reconsider failed to cite any legal errors or policy misapplications in the Director’s prior decision. The appeal was dismissed.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was whether the petitioner established a qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities. The Director found significant inconsistencies in the petitioner’s ownership structure and a lack of credible documentation proving common ownership and control.
Additionally, the petitioner failed to demonstrate its ability to pay the beneficiary’s wage, as the financial records submitted did not cover the period from the petition’s priority date of December 14, 2018, through the present. The petitioner attempted to submit 2020 tax returns on appeal, but this was deemed insufficient since it did not cover the full required period.
The AAO also noted discrepancies in the dates of the beneficiary’s claimed foreign employment, which the petitioner did not resolve. Furthermore, a key partnership document related to the foreign employer lacked signatures, raising concerns about its credibility.
USCIS Findings
The AAO upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss both motions and the appeal, concluding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof in establishing a qualifying relationship and the ability to pay the beneficiary’s wage.
The AAO found that the petitioner resubmitted previously rejected documents without providing new material evidence to support reopening the case. Additionally, the AAO determined that the petitioner’s motion to reconsider failed to cite legal precedent or policy errors that would justify overturning the denial.
Supporting Evidence
- Deed of partnership related to ownership of the foreign entity.
- Deed of partnership related to ownership of the U.S. entity.
- 2021 corporate tax return for the petitioner.
- 2020 corporate tax return submitted on appeal.
- Corporate bank statements for the U.S. entity.
- Organizational chart for the foreign entity.
- Employment verification letter for the beneficiary.
- Corporate lease agreement, licenses, and permits for the U.S. entity.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that petitioners must provide consistent and verifiable documentation to establish a qualifying relationship between U.S. and foreign entities. The lack of signed partnership agreements, unresolved inconsistencies in ownership, and financial documentation gaps were critical deficiencies in this case.
Additionally, the AAO reiterated that an appeal cannot succeed if it merely resubmits previously rejected evidence without introducing new, material facts. The petitioner’s failure to explain the inconsistencies in ownership and employment records further weakened the case.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to establish a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity, did not demonstrate its ability to pay the beneficiary’s wage, and did not provide sufficient evidence of the beneficiary’s managerial or executive role abroad. The AAO found no legal or factual errors in the prior decisions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
