Date of Decision: September 11, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Metal and Plastics Machine Parts Manufacturing
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Design and Production Manager
Field: Metal and Plastics Machine Parts Manufacturing
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 company specializing in metal and plastics machine parts design and manufacturing, sought to employ the beneficiary as its design and production manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.
The Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity and that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial capacity in the United States. The director determined that the beneficiary’s foreign and U.S. roles were more akin to those of a first-line supervisor rather than a manager overseeing professional or managerial employees or an essential function.
The petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, which was dismissed. The Administrative Appeals Office reviewed the case on appeal and determined that the director’s decision was correctly decided, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. The director found that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary supervised managerial or professional employees or managed an essential function.
The petitioner argued that the beneficiary supervised and controlled the work of professional employees both in the United States and abroad. However, the evidence submitted failed to demonstrate that a bachelor’s degree was required for the beneficiary’s subordinates’ positions, which is necessary to classify them as professional employees under USCIS regulations.
Additionally, the director found that the petitioner’s foreign entity’s organizational chart from 2009 did not reflect the company’s structure at the time of filing and that there was no supporting documentation verifying the employment of the listed subordinates. The petitioner’s reliance on an outdated organizational chart and unsupported assertions regarding the beneficiary’s managerial role further weakened its case.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office upheld the director’s decision, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary’s U.S. or foreign role met the definition of managerial capacity. The appeal was dismissed based on the following findings:
- The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s subordinates in the United States were professional employees requiring a bachelor’s degree or that they held managerial or supervisory roles.
- The foreign employer’s organizational chart was outdated and lacked supporting documentation confirming the employment of the beneficiary’s claimed subordinates.
- The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary managed an essential function within the organization.
- The motion to reconsider did not cite any legal or policy errors in the prior decision, and the motion to reopen did not introduce new, material evidence that would change the outcome.
The Administrative Appeals Office also clarified that prior approval of an L-1A nonimmigrant petition for the beneficiary does not guarantee approval of an EB-1C immigrant petition, as the two categories have different evidentiary requirements.
Supporting Evidence
- Updated letters from the petitioner’s president and the foreign employer’s HR manager
- Organizational chart for the U.S. entity and a 2009 organizational chart for the foreign entity
- Educational credentials for the beneficiary’s U.S. and foreign subordinates
- U.S. employee performance reviews
- Position descriptions for the beneficiary’s subordinates
Additional Notes
The Administrative Appeals Office emphasized that an EB-1C petitioner must clearly establish that a beneficiary’s duties align with the statutory definitions of managerial or executive capacity. The evidence submitted must demonstrate that the beneficiary is relieved of non-qualifying duties and that they primarily oversee managerial or professional employees or an essential function.
The decision also reaffirmed that appeals and motions must directly address prior denial grounds with relevant evidence, rather than reasserting previously rejected claims or presenting new arguments that materially change the petition.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad or in the United States in a qualifying managerial capacity. The evidence did not demonstrate that the beneficiary supervised professional employees, managed a qualifying function, or was primarily engaged in executive-level duties.