Date of Decision: June 1, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Global Accounting and Business Advisory
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Director of Mergers and Acquisitions
Field: Global Accounting and Business Advisory
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a global provider of accounting, tax, and business advisory services, sought to employ the beneficiary as a Director within its mergers and acquisitions division under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed by a qualifying foreign entity for at least one year in the three years preceding his entry to the United States as a nonimmigrant to work for the petitioner.
On appeal, the petitioner argued that the director misinterpreted the relevant law and facts. However, after reviewing the petition and additional documentation, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal, affirming the director’s decision.
Key Issues
The primary issue on appeal was whether the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity by a qualifying foreign entity during the relevant three-year period before his entry to the United States. The AAO found that the beneficiary had a significant interruption in his employment with the petitioner’s multinational organization, having worked for an unrelated employer in the U.S. for nearly six years before rejoining the petitioner. This interruption disqualified the beneficiary from the EB-1C classification, as it broke the continuity of employment required by the statute.
USCIS Findings
The AAO determined that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required for the EB-1C classification. The evidence provided was insufficient to establish that the beneficiary met the requirement of having worked for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity for a qualifying foreign entity during the relevant period. The AAO also noted that the petitioner’s broad interpretation of the regulations was inconsistent with the intent of the classification, which aims to ensure continuity of employment within the same multinational organization.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including employment records and legal briefs. However, the AAO found these materials insufficient to address the critical issue of the beneficiary’s prolonged break in employment with the petitioner’s multinational organization, which undermined the claim of eligibility for the EB-1C classification.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of maintaining continuous employment with the petitioner’s multinational organization to qualify for the EB-1C classification. The significant gap in the beneficiary’s employment with the petitioner’s organization contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not successfully establish that the beneficiary met the continuous employment requirement necessary for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
