Date of Decision: September 26, 2018
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Motor Vehicle Exporting
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Manager of International Sales
Field: Motor Vehicle Exporting
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The Petitioner, a motor vehicle exporting company, sought to employ the Beneficiary as its Manager of International Sales under the EB-1 classification for multinational executives or managers. This visa 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.
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, or would be employed in the United States, in a managerial or executive capacity. Additionally, the Director determined that the individual who signed the petition lacked the authority to extend a job offer, leading to questions about the validity of the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner disputed the findings, arguing that the Beneficiary held a function manager role abroad and would assume a similar role in the United States. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal, although it withdrew the Director’s findings related to signing authority and the bona fide nature of the job offer.
Key Issues
The primary issues in this case included:
Managerial Capacity of U.S. Employment: The Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity in the United States. The job descriptions provided were broad and lacked specific details about the Beneficiary’s daily responsibilities.
Managerial Capacity Abroad: The Petitioner also failed to establish that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity abroad. The evidence did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary managed an essential function or had the authority and responsibility required for a managerial role.
Ability to Pay Proffered Wage: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate its ability to pay the Beneficiary’s proffered wage at the time the petition was filed.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) made several key findings:
Inadequate Job Descriptions and Organizational Structure: The Petitioner provided inconsistent organizational charts and vague job descriptions that did not clearly establish the Beneficiary’s managerial responsibilities. The evidence suggested that the Beneficiary was involved in operational tasks rather than managing an essential function.
Function Manager Role Not Established: The Petitioner’s claim that the Beneficiary would serve as a function manager was not supported by the evidence. The AAO found that the Beneficiary’s duties were more aligned with non-managerial functions, such as sales and customer service, rather than overseeing and managing an essential function within the organization.
Failure to Demonstrate Ability to Pay: The Petitioner did not provide the required financial documentation, such as federal tax returns or audited financial statements, to establish its ability to pay the Beneficiary’s proffered wage at the time of filing.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered in this decision included:
Organizational Charts and Job Descriptions: The job descriptions and organizational charts provided by the Petitioner were inconsistent and lacked detail, failing to demonstrate that the Beneficiary’s role was primarily managerial.
Payroll and Tax Documentation: The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient payroll records, tax returns, or other financial documents to substantiate its ability to pay the Beneficiary’s wage as required by regulations.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing clear, detailed, and consistent evidence when petitioning for an EB-1 classification. The lack of specificity in the Beneficiary’s job descriptions, the inconsistencies in the organizational structure, and the failure to demonstrate the ability to pay were critical factors in the dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity in the United States, nor did it demonstrate the ability to pay the proffered wage at the time of filing, leading to the denial of the petition.
