Date of Decision: January 24, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Business Management
Petitioner Information
Profession: President and CEO
Field: Business Management
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, G&DW-, Inc., a distributor and retailer of cell phones and accessories, sought to employ the beneficiary as its president and CEO under the EB-1 classification for multinational executives or managers. The petitioner argued that the beneficiary was qualified to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity, specifically overseeing the company’s operations and strategic direction.
Key Issues
The primary issues in this case revolved around whether the petitioner could prove that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. The Director of the Texas Service Center found discrepancies in the petitioner’s evidence, particularly concerning the company’s staffing levels, which cast doubt on whether the beneficiary would be relieved of performing non-managerial duties necessary for the day-to-day operations of the business. Another issue was a discrepancy regarding the petitioner’s Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN), which the Director initially found problematic but later accepted as satisfactorily explained.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS and Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner’s job descriptions for the beneficiary were found to be too broad and lacking in detail, failing to clarify the specific day-to-day duties of the beneficiary. The AAO noted that the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role would be focused on the high-level managerial or executive duties as required by the statute, rather than operational tasks. Additionally, the petitioner’s staffing levels were deemed insufficient to support the beneficiary’s claimed executive role, with evidence suggesting that the beneficiary would likely need to engage in the daily operational tasks of the business.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including state and federal quarterly tax returns, organizational charts, and a detailed response to a Request for Evidence (RFE). However, these were not enough to substantiate the claim that the beneficiary would function in a purely managerial or executive capacity. The evidence provided was inconsistent with the company’s actual operational needs and did not convincingly demonstrate that the beneficiary’s duties would be primarily executive or managerial.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing detailed and specific job descriptions that clearly delineate a beneficiary’s daily responsibilities, especially in cases where the size of the organization may require the beneficiary to perform non-managerial tasks. The AAO also highlighted that merely holding an executive title or owning a business does not automatically qualify an individual for the EB-1 classification; the nature of their work must meet the statutory definitions of managerial or executive capacity.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, and the petition remained denied. The AAO concluded that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. The decision underscores the need for petitioners to provide comprehensive and specific evidence when applying for immigration benefits under the EB-1 category for multinational managers or executives.