Date of Decision: January 24, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Mechanical Tools and Supplies Distribution
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General Manager
Field: Mechanical Tools and Supplies Distribution
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a distributor of mechanical tools and supplies, sought to employ the beneficiary as its general manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The petition was denied by the Director of the Texas Service Center on multiple grounds, including failure to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, that the beneficiary’s U.S. position would be in a managerial or executive capacity, that the petitioner had the ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage, and that the petitioner would be a bona fide employer of the beneficiary. The subsequent appeal was also dismissed, and the petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, which is now under review.
Key Issues
The key issues revolved around whether the petitioner could establish the managerial or executive nature of the beneficiary’s employment, both abroad and in the United States. Additionally, the petitioner’s ability to pay the beneficiary’s wage and its status as a bona fide employer were also critical concerns. On appeal, the petitioner failed to adequately address these issues, leading to the dismissal.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviewed the petitioner’s motions and found that the petitioner did not provide new, relevant facts or arguments that demonstrated the previous decision was incorrect based on the law or USCIS policy. The AAO emphasized that the petitioner did not submit any new evidence with the motion to reopen and did not make a compelling argument in the motion to reconsider, merely referencing prior submissions without demonstrating legal or factual errors in the original decision.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner referred to payroll records, job descriptions, and tax returns, but did not submit any new documentation with the motion. The lack of new evidence or cogent legal arguments led to the dismissal of both the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider.
Additional Notes
The AAO concluded that the motions did not meet the requirements for reconsideration or reopening and that the previous decision to dismiss the appeal was consistent with USCIS policy and regulations. The motions were therefore dismissed.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were dismissed. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence or legal justification to overturn the previous decisions.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
