Date of Decision: June 19, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Data and Information Management Software
Beneficiary Information
Profession: District Systems Engineering Manager
Field: Data and Information Management
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a data and information management software company, sought to employ the beneficiary as a “District Systems Engineering Manager” under the EB-1 classification for multinational managers or executives. This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in a managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner aimed to demonstrate that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity and would continue in such a role in the U.S.
Key Issues
The key issues in this case centered on whether the petitioner could establish that the beneficiary:
Was employed abroad in a managerial capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding the petition.
Would be employed in the U.S. in a managerial capacity.
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to prove that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity and would be similarly employed in the U.S.
USCIS Findings
Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. The petitioner described the beneficiary’s role as a “Principal Systems Engineering Lead,” claiming that he managed an essential function within the organization. However, the AAO determined that the evidence provided was insufficient to clearly define the essential function managed by the beneficiary or to demonstrate that his duties were primarily managerial.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted a description of the beneficiary’s job duties, which included managing client engagements, overseeing technical training, and recruiting technical staff. However, the AAO found that the description was too broad and lacked specific details necessary to establish the managerial nature of the beneficiary’s role. Additionally, the petitioner did not provide an organizational chart or sufficient information about the foreign entity’s structure to support the claim that the beneficiary held a senior position.
Additional Notes
The AAO noted that the petitioner failed to address several key deficiencies in the evidence provided, particularly regarding the beneficiary’s specific daily duties and the organizational structure of the foreign entity. The decision emphasized the importance of providing detailed descriptions of job duties and clear evidence of a beneficiary’s managerial role.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed as the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. The decision highlighted the need for detailed and specific evidence to support claims of managerial or executive employment for EB-1 petitions.
