Date of Decision: September 11, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Real Estate Development
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Director of West Coast Operations
Field: Real Estate Development
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a real estate developer, sought to employ the beneficiary as the Director of West Coast Operations under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary had been, or would be, employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity.
On appeal, the petitioner argued that the beneficiary had worked, and would work, in a qualifying managerial capacity. However, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal, upholding the Director’s decision.
Key Issues
The key issue on appeal was whether the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s former employment abroad and her proposed employment in the United States primarily involved qualifying managerial duties. The AAO found that the petitioner’s descriptions of the beneficiary’s duties were vague, lacked specificity, and included inconsistencies that undermined the credibility of the petitioner’s claims.
USCIS Findings
The AAO determined that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to establish eligibility for the EB-1C classification. The AAO found that the petitioner failed to provide clear evidence that the beneficiary’s role in the U.S. would be primarily managerial or executive. Additionally, the AAO noted inconsistencies in the organizational structure, which raised doubts about the beneficiary’s actual day-to-day responsibilities and the overall staffing levels of the petitioning entity.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including job descriptions, organizational charts, and payroll records. However, the AAO found that the evidence was insufficient to support the petitioner’s claims regarding the beneficiary’s managerial or executive role, both abroad and in the United States.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing detailed, consistent, and credible evidence when seeking EB-1C classification. The petitioner’s failure to clarify the percentage of time the beneficiary would devote to qualifying duties, along with the lack of sufficient subordinate staff, were significant factors in the denial of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad, or would be employed in the United States, in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity under the EB-1C classification.
