Date of Decision: October 6, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Auto Body Shop
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Executive Director
Field: Auto Body Shop
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, an auto body shop, sought to employ the beneficiary as its Executive Director under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity and failed to demonstrate the ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage of $60,000 per year. The petitioner appealed the decision, but the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal.
Key Issues
The Director’s denial was based on two main findings:
- Managerial or Executive Capacity: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role would primarily involve executive or managerial duties. The job descriptions submitted by the petitioner were vague, inconsistent, and did not clearly define the beneficiary’s specific responsibilities. Additionally, the petitioner’s organizational structure did not support the claim that the beneficiary would be relieved of non-managerial tasks.
- Ability to Pay: The petitioner failed to demonstrate its ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage. The petitioner submitted inconsistent financial documentation, including federal income tax returns and payroll records, which showed discrepancies in the reported wages and net income. The petitioner’s net income and net current assets were insufficient to cover the beneficiary’s salary, and there were significant discrepancies in the documentation provided regarding the beneficiary’s past salary payments.
USCIS Findings
Upon review, the AAO upheld the Director’s decision. The AAO found that the petitioner’s submissions were inconsistent and did not adequately demonstrate its ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage from the time of filing onward. The AAO also noted that the petitioner’s job descriptions for the beneficiary were not detailed enough to meet the statutory definition of managerial or executive capacity, and the inconsistencies in the payroll and financial records raised concerns about the credibility of the evidence provided.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted federal income tax returns, payroll statements, bank statements, and job descriptions. However, the AAO found that these documents were inconsistent and lacked the necessary detail to substantiate the petitioner’s claims regarding the beneficiary’s employment and the company’s financial stability.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that the petitioner’s failure to provide clear, consistent, and credible evidence regarding both the beneficiary’s role and the company’s ability to pay the proffered wage led to the dismissal of the appeal. The AAO also highlighted that the discrepancies in the payroll records and the inconsistencies in the financial documents were significant factors in the final decision.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity or that it had the ability to pay the proffered wage.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
