Date of Decision: July 9, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Management and Executive Leadership
Petitioner Information
Profession: President and Chief Executive Officer
Field: Management and Executive Leadership
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a gas station and convenience store operator, sought to employ the beneficiary as its President and Chief Executive Officer under the EB-1 classification for multinational executives or managers. The petitioner claimed that the beneficiary had been employed in an executive capacity outside the United States and sought to transfer the beneficiary to the U.S. to continue similar duties.
Key Issues
The primary issues in this case revolved around whether the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity as defined by U.S. immigration law. The Director of the Texas Service Center initially denied the petition on the grounds that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary would be performing primarily executive duties in the U.S.
USCIS Findings
Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) agreed with the Director’s findings and dismissed the appeal. The AAO found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the beneficiary’s role would meet the criteria for an executive capacity position. Specifically, the AAO highlighted that:
The job description provided by the petitioner was too vague and did not adequately detail the beneficiary’s day-to-day responsibilities.
The petitioner’s organizational structure and staffing levels were insufficient to relieve the beneficiary from performing non-executive tasks.
There was a lack of corroborative evidence, such as contracts or tax records, to support the petitioner’s claims regarding the employment of other managers or the use of contractors.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents to support the claim, including a list of the beneficiary’s duties, a breakdown of the beneficiary’s time allocation across different tasks, and details about the organization’s staffing. However, the AAO found these documents inadequate because they lacked specificity and did not sufficiently establish that the beneficiary would be engaged primarily in executive duties.
Additional Notes
The AAO also noted discrepancies in the petitioner’s claims, such as the lack of clarity regarding the foreign employer’s structure and the relationship between the petitioner and the foreign entity. The petitioner’s failure to address these inconsistencies further weakened the case.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, with the AAO concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily executive capacity in the United States. The decision underscores the importance of providing detailed and specific evidence to support claims of executive or managerial capacity in EB-1 cases.
