Date of Decision: October 20, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Furniture Design and Manufacturing
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Furniture Design and Manufacturing
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, M-F-M Corporation, is a designer and manufacturer of furniture, seeking to employ the beneficiary as its president under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. This classification permits a U.S. employer to transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in a managerial or executive capacity. The Texas Service Center denied the petition, determining that the evidence presented failed to establish that the petitioner would employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity in the U.S.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was the petitioner’s failure to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive role within the United States. The petitioner also did not address or dispute the grounds for denial in the appeal, nor did they provide additional evidence or a brief within the requested timeframe.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS found that the petitioner did not fulfill the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v), which necessitates that an appeal specifically identify any erroneous conclusions of law or statements of fact. Due to the absence of such a statement, the appeal was summarily dismissed. Furthermore, the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility for the benefit sought, as outlined under Section 291 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner failed to submit any additional evidence or brief in support of the appeal, despite indicating their intention to do so on Form I-290B. The decision noted that the petitioner’s failure to provide the necessary documentation was a significant factor in the denial.
Additional Notes
It is worth mentioning that the petitioner has filed a new petition seeking the same classification for the beneficiary. This new petition is still pending and has not been affected by the summary dismissal of the current appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was summarily dismissed due to the petitioner’s failure to identify an erroneous conclusion of law or fact, and for not meeting the burden of proof required for the requested immigration benefit.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
