Date of Decision: September 13, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: General Management
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General Manager
Field: Export of Weather Instruments
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, C-, Inc., an exporter of weather instruments, sought to employ the beneficiary as its General Manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. However, the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary’s employment in a managerial or executive capacity, both abroad and in the United States.
Key Issues
The main issues in this case revolved around whether the beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner claimed that the beneficiary held significant authority both abroad and in the U.S. but failed to provide detailed evidence supporting this claim. Additionally, the petitioner described its business as complex but could not substantiate this with adequate documentation, particularly given that it had only four employees at the time of filing.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS found several deficiencies in the petitioner’s case:
- The descriptions of the beneficiary’s duties were inconsistent and lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate that the role was primarily managerial or executive.
- The petitioner failed to substantiate its claims of a complex organizational structure and the use of independent contractors to relieve the beneficiary from non-qualifying duties.
- Conflicting job descriptions and a lack of evidence supporting the petitioner’s claims further weakened the case.
- The motion to reopen was also denied due to untimely submission of new evidence that did not resolve the issues previously identified.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered in the decision included:
- Inconsistent job descriptions that did not convincingly outline the managerial nature of the beneficiary’s role.
- A lack of corroborative evidence supporting the use of independent contractors and the claimed business complexity.
- Documents submitted with the motion to reopen, including a new job description and additional information about the beneficiary’s duties, were deemed insufficient to overcome the original grounds for denial.
Additional Notes
The petitioner’s failure to timely file the motion to reopen and the subsequent failure to provide compelling new evidence ultimately led to the denial of the motion. Furthermore, discrepancies in the job descriptions and the petitioner’s inability to prove the complex nature of the business were critical factors in the final decision.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was denied, and the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving eligibility for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
