Date of Decision: July 25, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Convenience Store Operations
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General Manager
Field: Convenience Store Operations
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, which claims to operate a convenience store, sought to employ the beneficiary as its General Manager 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 had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner appealed the decision, but the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal.
Key Issues
The Director’s denial was based on several critical findings:
- Lack of Managerial Capacity: The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. The evidence, including an undated organizational chart and the beneficiary’s resume, did not support the claim that the beneficiary held a managerial role. The organizational chart showed the beneficiary as an “Account Manager” rather than a “Finance and Accounts Manager” as initially claimed, and the job responsibilities listed were more operational than managerial.
- Inconsistent Employment History: The petitioner submitted conflicting information regarding the beneficiary’s employment history and location. For example, the beneficiary’s U.S. immigration forms indicated continuous residence in the United States since 2008, which contradicted the petitioner’s claim that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in 2015 and later years.
USCIS Findings
Upon review, the AAO upheld the Director’s decision, agreeing that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required for the EB-1C classification. The AAO emphasized the inconsistencies in the beneficiary’s employment history and the lack of detailed, credible evidence to support the claim that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity abroad.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including an undated organizational chart, the beneficiary’s resume, and letters from officials of the foreign entity. However, these documents were inconsistent and lacked the necessary detail to establish the beneficiary’s managerial role.
Additional Notes
The AAO also highlighted the petitioner’s failure to address additional issues, such as the ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage and the petitioner’s inconsistent identity and business activity. These issues, while not the primary basis for denial, further undermined the credibility of the petitioner’s claims.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the beneficiary’s qualifying managerial role abroad or resolve inconsistencies in the employment history.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
