Date of Decision: October 2, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Biogas Engineering
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Director of Technology
Field: Biogas Engineering
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Sustained
Case Overview
The petitioner, a biogas engineering company, sought to employ the beneficiary as its director of technology under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.
The Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The director found that the beneficiary’s job description and responsibilities did not sufficiently demonstrate that he exercised wide discretion in decision-making and received only general supervision.
On appeal, the petitioner submitted additional evidence and arguments supporting the beneficiary’s executive role in the foreign entity. 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 demonstrated that the beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity. The director determined that the record lacked sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary was primarily engaged in high-level decision-making rather than performing operational duties.
The petitioner argued that the beneficiary was responsible for directing the engineering department, setting goals and policies, and overseeing major technical projects. The petitioner further asserted that the beneficiary was relieved of non-qualifying operational duties by subordinate engineers, allowing him to focus on executive responsibilities.
The Administrative Appeals Office reviewed the evidence and determined that the petitioner provided a sufficient description of the beneficiary’s duties and reporting structure. The record demonstrated that the beneficiary had discretionary decision-making authority and was only subject to general supervision from the chief technology officer of the foreign entity.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office found that the petitioner successfully established that the beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity. Key findings included:
- The beneficiary directed a major component of the foreign entity—its engineering department.
- The petitioner submitted detailed job descriptions and organizational charts showing that the beneficiary was responsible for establishing department-wide policies and goals.
- The beneficiary had discretionary authority in decision-making and was relieved of non-qualifying duties by subordinate engineers.
- The beneficiary received only general supervision from the foreign employer’s chief technology officer.
Based on these findings, the appeal was sustained, and the petition was approved.
Supporting Evidence
- Detailed job description outlining the beneficiary’s executive responsibilities
- Organizational charts showing the beneficiary’s position within the engineering department
- Payroll and employment records verifying the existence of subordinate engineers
- Documentation of engineering projects managed by the beneficiary
- Correspondence and reports demonstrating the beneficiary’s discretionary decision-making authority
Additional Notes
The Administrative Appeals Office emphasized that the statutory definition of executive capacity focuses on an individual’s ability to direct the management of an organization, establish goals and policies, and exercise discretion in decision-making. Simply holding an executive title is not sufficient; the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary’s actual duties align with the regulatory requirements.
This decision also reinforced that petitioners must provide clear and detailed evidence showing that a beneficiary is relieved of non-qualifying operational tasks by subordinate employees, ensuring that their primary role is executive in nature.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal sustained.
Reasoning: The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity, directing the engineering department with wide discretionary authority and receiving only general supervision.