Date of Decision: August 31, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Real Estate Investment and Development
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General Manager
Field: Real Estate Investment and Development
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a real estate investment and development company, 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 was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad prior to his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant. The petitioner appealed, arguing that the denial was erroneous, particularly because the Director had cited a lack of specific percentages of time devoted to the beneficiary’s various tasks abroad.
Key Issues
The main issue was whether the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity abroad. The Director found that the petitioner failed to provide adequate details regarding the beneficiary’s foreign duties, including the lack of specific percentages of time spent on qualifying versus non-qualifying tasks. The petitioner argued that the Director incorrectly focused on this lack of detail and that the evidence submitted was sufficient to establish the beneficiary’s managerial role.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) upheld the Director’s decision, agreeing that the petitioner did not adequately document the managerial nature of the beneficiary’s foreign duties. The AAO found that the description of the beneficiary’s duties included a significant amount of non-qualifying operational tasks, and the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that these tasks were delegated to subordinates. Additionally, the AAO noted discrepancies in the petitioner’s statements regarding the beneficiary’s employment history, which further undermined the credibility of the claims.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted a duty description, organizational charts, and other related documents to support its claim. However, the AAO found that these documents did not sufficiently establish that the beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties. The lack of clear, consistent evidence and the presence of unresolved discrepancies contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing detailed and consistent evidence when establishing a beneficiary’s managerial capacity. The failure to resolve discrepancies in the beneficiary’s employment history and to provide a clear breakdown of managerial versus operational duties led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity abroad, as required for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
