Date of Decision: June 5, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Real Estate Development and Operations
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Real Estate Development and Operations
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a real estate development and operations company, sought to employ the beneficiary as its President under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary’s duties, either in the United States or abroad, were those of a manager or executive.
On appeal, the petitioner submitted additional documentation, including employment contracts, bank statements, and evidence of business transactions. The petitioner argued that the submitted evidence sufficiently demonstrated the managerial nature of the beneficiary’s employment. However, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal, affirming the director’s decision.
Key Issues
The primary issues on appeal were whether the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role, both abroad and in the United States, was primarily managerial or executive. The AAO found that the job descriptions provided were vague and did not clearly indicate the beneficiary’s daily duties. The petitioner also failed to establish that the beneficiary’s subordinates were supervisory or professional employees, which is required to qualify as a managerial position under the relevant statutes.
USCIS Findings
The AAO determined that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required for the EB-1C classification. The evidence provided was insufficient to establish that the beneficiary’s duties were primarily managerial or executive in nature. The AAO also noted inconsistencies in the petitioner’s organizational structure and questioned the petitioner’s ability to relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying tasks.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including organizational charts, job descriptions, and employee resumes. However, the AAO found these materials insufficient to address the deficiencies noted by the director, particularly regarding the managerial or executive nature of the beneficiary’s role and the qualifications of his subordinates.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing a clear and detailed job description that accurately reflects the managerial or executive nature of the beneficiary’s duties. The lack of specific, reliable documentation and the presence of inconsistencies in the organizational structure contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not successfully establish that the beneficiary’s proposed duties in the United States would be primarily managerial or executive in nature.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
