Date of Decision: October 1, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Event Planning Services
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General Manager
Field: Event Planning Services
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a provider of event planning services for weddings and other functions, sought to employ the beneficiary as its general manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.
The Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States. The director found that the petitioner did not demonstrate sufficient staffing or organizational structure to support the beneficiary in such a role.
The petitioner appealed the decision, asserting that the director disregarded key evidence and that the beneficiary was a functional manager rather than a traditional executive. Upon de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office determined that the petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to support this claim and upheld the denial.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States. The director concluded that the company did not have adequate staffing or organizational structure at the time of filing to relieve the beneficiary from non-executive duties.
The petitioner provided conflicting organizational charts, listing different titles and reporting structures for its employees. The business plan indicated four employees, but another document suggested five employees, including an administrative assistant whose existence was not corroborated by payroll records. These discrepancies raised doubts about the company’s staffing levels and ability to support an executive position.
Additionally, the petitioner’s evidence did not clearly establish that the beneficiary’s subordinates could relieve him of day-to-day operational responsibilities. Without supporting personnel, the director determined that the beneficiary would likely be engaged in operational tasks, rather than high-level executive duties.
The petitioner argued that the beneficiary should be considered a functional manager, meaning he primarily managed a critical business function rather than supervising employees. However, the Administrative Appeals Office found that this claim was not made in the initial petition and was introduced for the first time on appeal, which constitutes an impermissible material change under USCIS policy.
Furthermore, even if the functional manager claim had been properly raised, the petitioner did not specify what function the beneficiary managed, nor did it provide evidence that the function was essential, that the beneficiary acted at a senior level, or that he exercised discretion over the function’s daily operations.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office upheld the denial based on the following findings:
- The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed primarily in an executive capacity, as the company lacked sufficient staffing to relieve him from operational duties.
- The inconsistent organizational charts and employment records undermined the credibility of the petition.
- The functional manager argument was introduced for the first time on appeal, which constitutes an impermissible material change to the petition.
- Even if the functional manager claim had been considered, the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role met the regulatory criteria.
Additionally, while not a primary factor in the denial, the Administrative Appeals Office noted concerns about the petitioner’s qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. The petitioner initially claimed that the beneficiary’s foreign employer owned 100% of the U.S. entity, but corporate records and tax filings listed the beneficiary as the sole owner, raising doubts about the claimed parent-subsidiary relationship.
Supporting Evidence
- Organizational charts with inconsistent employee listings and reporting structures
- Business plan describing company operations and staffing levels
- Payroll records and tax filings indicating the number of employees at the time of filing
- Beneficiary’s job description and list of responsibilities
- Company correspondence and operational records
Additional Notes
The Administrative Appeals Office emphasized that petitioners must provide clear, consistent, and verifiable documentation to demonstrate that a beneficiary’s role meets the statutory definitions of managerial or executive capacity. Simply holding an executive title is insufficient; the petitioner must show that the beneficiary’s duties align with regulatory requirements and that the company’s staffing structure supports an executive position.
The decision also reaffirmed that appeals cannot introduce new claims that materially alter the original petition. If a petitioner wishes to assert a different legal basis for eligibility, such as reclassifying a beneficiary as a functional manager, it must do so at the time of filing rather than on appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary’s U.S. employment would be in an executive capacity. The inconsistencies in staffing documentation, the lack of supporting evidence for the functional manager claim, and the concerns about the qualifying relationship contributed to the dismissal.