Date of Decision: April 21, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Management Consulting
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Management Consultant
Field: Management Consulting
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a management consulting firm, sought to employ the beneficiary as a management consultant 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 had been employed abroad, nor would be employed in the United States, in a managerial capacity. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO).
Key Issues
The Director’s denial was based on the determination that the beneficiary’s roles, both abroad and in the U.S., did not qualify as managerial positions. The Director cited concerns about the lack of detailed job descriptions, inconsistencies in the organizational structure, and the petitioner’s failure to provide sufficient evidence that the beneficiary’s duties were primarily managerial rather than operational. The Director also highlighted the need for more specific details regarding the beneficiary’s authority over personnel actions and the management of projects.
USCIS Findings
Upon review, the AAO found that the Director’s decision did not provide a comprehensive explanation of the deficiencies in the petitioner’s evidence, limiting the petitioner’s ability to respond effectively on appeal. The AAO agreed with the petitioner that the longer job descriptions submitted in response to the Request for Evidence (RFE) expanded on the initial descriptions rather than materially changing them. The AAO also noted that the Director failed to adequately address the petitioner’s claims regarding the beneficiary’s managerial capacity, particularly in terms of overseeing project teams and making key personnel decisions.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner provided job descriptions, organizational charts, and statements regarding the beneficiary’s authority over hiring, firing, and managing project teams. The AAO determined that while these documents had potential, they were not fully considered in the Director’s initial decision.
Additional Notes
The AAO remanded the case, instructing the Director to give the petitioner an opportunity to address the specific concerns raised and to submit additional evidence if necessary. The Director was also directed to provide a clearer analysis of the petitioner’s claims, particularly regarding the beneficiary’s managerial role and the organizational structure.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review. The petitioner was given the opportunity to submit additional evidence and to address the concerns raised in the initial decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
