Date of Decision: June 26, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Convenience Store Operations
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Convenience Store Operations
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a convenience store operator, sought to employ the beneficiary as its President under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.
The Texas Service Center denied the petition, determining that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. Specifically, the Director found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the beneficiary’s foreign employment duties and responsibilities. The initial submission lacked a required statement detailing the beneficiary’s role abroad, and business documents from the foreign entity referred to the beneficiary as a “partner” without describing his managerial or executive functions.
The petitioner responded to a request for evidence (RFE) by submitting a statement from a company official, but the response did not include details about the beneficiary’s claimed foreign employment duties. The director subsequently denied the petition due to the absence of required documentation demonstrating the beneficiary’s executive or managerial role abroad.
On appeal, the petitioner asserted that it had provided sufficient evidence of the beneficiary’s executive control of the foreign company. However, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that merely holding the title of “partner” or “financial controller” did not automatically establish that the beneficiary performed executive or managerial duties. Additionally, the petitioner introduced a new letter on appeal describing the beneficiary’s foreign duties, but since this document was not included in the original record or the RFE response, the AAO declined to consider it.
The AAO also identified discrepancies in the beneficiary’s U.S. immigration history. The petitioner claimed that the beneficiary last entered the United States in May 2020, but the record showed an earlier entry as a B-2 visitor in October 2015 with no evidence of subsequent departures. Furthermore, the beneficiary’s name did not appear in the petitioner’s payroll records, nor did the petitioner demonstrate that the beneficiary had lawful work authorization during the relevant period. Given these inconsistencies, the AAO concluded that the beneficiary did not meet the EB-1C eligibility requirements.
Key Issues
The central issue in this appeal was whether the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year within the required three-year period. The director found that the petitioner failed to provide a detailed statement of the beneficiary’s job duties, which is necessary to establish executive or managerial capacity. Additionally, inconsistencies in the beneficiary’s immigration history raised questions about whether he accrued the required qualifying experience abroad. The AAO determined that the petitioner did not meet its burden of proof and dismissed the appeal.
USCIS Findings
The AAO upheld the director’s denial, finding that the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary’s managerial or executive role abroad. The evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary performed qualifying duties during the required time frame. Furthermore, inconsistencies in the beneficiary’s U.S. entry records and lack of documentation supporting his claimed work history contributed to the petition’s denial.
Supporting Evidence
- Business documents referring to the beneficiary as a “partner” without specifying duties.
- Statement from a company official that did not detail the beneficiary’s foreign job responsibilities.
- Payroll records that did not list the beneficiary as an employee.
- Entry records showing the beneficiary’s U.S. arrival in October 2015 with no evidence of subsequent departures.
- Letter describing the beneficiary’s foreign employment duties, introduced for the first time on appeal.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that an executive or managerial title alone does not establish eligibility for EB-1C classification. The petitioner must provide substantial evidence detailing the beneficiary’s job duties abroad, demonstrating that they align with the statutory and regulatory definitions of managerial or executive capacity. Additionally, discrepancies in a beneficiary’s immigration history can impact eligibility determinations, as they affect the relevant three-year qualifying period.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity for at least one year within the required period. Additionally, inconsistencies in the beneficiary’s immigration history undermined the petitioner’s claim.
