Date of Decision: December 7, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Iron Reduction Facility
Beneficiary Information
Profession: IT Manager
Field: Iron Reduction Facility
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, an iron reduction facility, sought to employ the beneficiary as an IT 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 a qualifying relationship between the petitioning U.S. employer and the beneficiary’s prior foreign employer. The petitioner appealed the decision, and the matter was brought before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for review.
Key Issues
The Director’s denial was based on the following findings:
- Qualifying Relationship: The Director determined that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a qualifying relationship existed between the U.S. entity and the beneficiary’s foreign employer. The Director noted that the petitioner had undergone a corporate restructuring and name change after the filing of the petition, which complicated the assessment of the relationship between the entities.
- Managerial or Executive Capacity: The Director also questioned whether the beneficiary’s role abroad qualified as managerial or executive, noting that the petitioner had not provided detailed evidence to support its claims regarding the beneficiary’s employment history and duties.
USCIS Findings
Upon de novo review, the AAO found that the Director’s decision did not fully address the petitioner’s claims regarding the qualifying relationship and the eligibility for job portability under section 204(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The AAO noted that the petitioner provided a Form I-797 Notice of Action from a blanket L petition, indicating that a qualifying relationship existed between the petitioner and the beneficiary’s foreign employer as of September 21, 2017. The petitioner also asserted that the beneficiary’s adjustment of status application had been pending for more than 180 days, making the beneficiary eligible for portability under the law.
The AAO determined that the Director’s decision failed to properly evaluate the petitioner’s claims about the qualifying relationship and the portability provisions, which allow for a pending immigrant visa petition to remain valid if the beneficiary changes jobs to a similar occupational classification after the adjustment application has been pending for 180 days.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted job descriptions, organizational charts, and other documents to support the existence of a qualifying relationship. However, the AAO found that the Director’s decision did not adequately consider the petitioner’s evidence or address the applicability of the portability provisions.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that the petitioner’s claims regarding job portability and the continuation of a qualifying relationship at the time of filing should have been fully addressed in the Director’s decision. The case was remanded to the Director for a new decision that considers all relevant evidence, including the petitioner’s eligibility for portability under section 204(j) of the Act.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review. The petitioner must be given an opportunity to address the issues identified and provide additional evidence as required.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
