Date of Decision: March 31, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Automotive Sales and Industrial Equipment
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President and General Manager
Field: Automotive Sales and Industrial Equipment
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a company involved in the buying and selling of cars, yachts, and industrial equipment, sought to employ the beneficiary as its President and General Manager 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 demonstrate the beneficiary’s qualifying foreign employment during the relevant three-year period, the beneficiary’s executive capacity both abroad and in the U.S., or the company’s ability to pay the proffered wage.
Key Issues
The petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) miscalculated the three-year period within which the beneficiary was required to have worked abroad for at least one year. The petitioner contended that the correct three-year period should have been January 2004 to January 2007, rather than June 2004 to June 2007, which was used in the initial decision.
USCIS Findings
Upon review, the AAO found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support its argument. The AAO noted that the social security records from Uruguay, which the petitioner submitted to demonstrate the beneficiary’s employment, were inconsistent and did not reliably prove that the beneficiary worked for the foreign entity during the required period. The AAO also determined that the petitioner’s argument about the appropriate three-year period was not supported by USCIS policy, which states that the three-year period for foreign employment must precede the beneficiary’s entry into the United States to work for the qualifying organization.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner provided Uruguayan social security records and other documentation, but these were found to be unreliable and insufficient to establish the required one year of qualifying foreign employment. The inconsistencies in the social security records and the lack of corroborating evidence led to the dismissal of the motion.
Additional Notes
The AAO dismissed the motion to reconsider, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary met the required one year of foreign employment within the relevant three-year period. The AAO reserved judgment on the other denial grounds since the petitioner failed to meet the threshold requirement for foreign employment.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider was dismissed. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the beneficiary’s qualifying foreign employment during the relevant period.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
