Date of Decision: December 5, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Wholesale Distribution
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Manager
Field: Wholesale Distribution
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Summarily Dismissed
Motion Outcome: Motion to Reopen Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a wholesale distributor, sought to employ the beneficiary as a manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.
The Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to submit required initial evidence, including proof of the U.S. job offer, a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer, ability to pay the proffered wage, proof of the beneficiary’s employment abroad in a managerial capacity, and evidence of the foreign employer’s continued business operations.
After failing to respond to a request for evidence (RFE), the petitioner appealed, but the Administrative Appeals Office summarily dismissed the appeal, finding that it did not specify any legal or factual errors in the director’s decision. The petitioner then filed a motion to reopen, which was also dismissed.
Key Issues
The first issue was the lack of required initial evidence. The director denied the petition because the petitioner failed to provide key documentation supporting the EB-1C eligibility criteria. The director requested the missing evidence, but the petitioner did not submit a timely response.
The second issue was the petitioner’s failure to identify any specific legal or factual errors on appeal. The Administrative Appeals Office dismissed the appeal, citing 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(v), which requires an appeal to specify why the decision was incorrect.
On motion, the petitioner submitted a letter from the beneficiary stating that the foreign employer had closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic more than two years ago. The letter also highlighted the U.S. company’s revenue of over $30 million in 2021 and its role in employing U.S. workers. However, the letter did not address the grounds for the original denial or provide the missing required evidence.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office determined that the motion to reopen did not meet the applicable requirements. Key findings included:
- The motion failed to address the specific reasons for the appellate dismissal, which required identifying legal or factual errors in the original decision.
- The beneficiary’s letter did not provide the required initial evidence necessary for an EB-1C approval, including proof of employment abroad, the qualifying relationship between the petitioner and the foreign employer, and documentation of ongoing business operations abroad.
- The petitioner must clarify any relationships between itself, another U.S. company mentioned in the beneficiary’s letter, and the beneficiary’s former foreign employer if pursuing future filings.
Because the motion did not resolve the deficiencies identified in the initial denial and appeal dismissal, it was also dismissed.
Supporting Evidence
- Beneficiary’s letter discussing company revenue and employment impact
- Prior denial notice and request for evidence from the Texas Service Center
- Administrative Appeals Office decision dismissing the initial appeal
Additional Notes
The Administrative Appeals Office emphasized that petitioners must provide all required initial evidence when filing an EB-1C petition. Failing to respond to an RFE or omitting key documentation results in denial, and subsequent appeals or motions must clearly identify legal or factual errors in the denial decision. Simply restating financial success or U.S. job creation does not address the specific statutory and regulatory requirements for EB-1C eligibility.
Additionally, the decision reaffirmed that a motion to reopen must present new, material evidence rather than repeating arguments that were previously considered and rejected.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Motion to reopen dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to provide required initial evidence, did not specify errors in the original decision on appeal, and did not submit new material evidence on motion to reopen.