Date of Decision: May 31, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Logistics and International Trade
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General Manager
Field: Logistics and International Trade
Nationality: [Not Provided in Document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a logistics and international trade company, filed a Form I-140, seeking to classify the beneficiary as an EB-1 multinational executive or manager. The beneficiary, who had been employed as a general manager by the petitioner, was intended to continue in an executive capacity within the U.S. company. This classification is reserved for individuals who have been employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity and seek to continue rendering such services in the U.S.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was whether the petitioner could establish that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity within the U.S. Specifically, the USCIS raised concerns about the sufficiency of the petitioner’s evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role met the statutory definition of “executive capacity.” The petitioner was also required to prove that the beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity before entering the U.S. to work for the petitioner.
USCIS Findings
The Nebraska Service Center denied the initial petition, concluding that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. The decision emphasized that while the beneficiary held a senior position, the job descriptions provided were too vague and lacked specific details about the beneficiary’s daily responsibilities. The decision also noted that the petitioner’s organizational structure did not demonstrate a clear delegation of non-executive duties to other staff members, which would have relieved the beneficiary from involvement in day-to-day operations.
Upon appeal, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) conducted a de novo review and found that the petitioner did indeed establish that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial capacity. However, the AAO upheld the denial of the petition because the petitioner failed to overcome the remaining grounds for denial, specifically regarding the beneficiary’s employment in an executive capacity in the U.S.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner’s supporting evidence included job descriptions, organizational charts, and performance appraisals. However, the evidence was found to be insufficiently detailed. The AAO noted that the job descriptions were overly broad, listing duties such as holding meetings and supervising staff without adequately describing the nature of the beneficiary’s day-to-day activities. The organizational chart and staffing levels also raised concerns, as it was unclear how the limited number of employees would allow the beneficiary to focus solely on executive tasks.
Additional Notes
The AAO also considered the overall size and structure of the petitioner’s business. With only nine employees at the time of filing, the AAO found it difficult to believe that the beneficiary would be able to perform primarily executive duties without being involved in the operational aspects of the business. The petitioner’s subsequent hiring of additional staff did not address these concerns, as the AAO determined that eligibility must be established at the time of filing and continue through adjudication.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in an executive capacity, as required for EB-1 classification.
This blog post offers a concise yet thorough summary of the case, highlighting the key issues and findings that led to the denial of the appeal.
