Date of Decision: September 17, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Furniture Retail Management
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Furniture Retail Management
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The Petitioner, a furniture retailer, sought to employ the Beneficiary as its President under the EB-1 classification for multinational executives or managers. This visa classification allows a U.S. employer to transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity.
The Director of the Texas Service Center initially denied the petition on four grounds and subsequently reaffirmed the denial on three grounds after reopening the case. The Petitioner filed several combined motions to reopen and reconsider, all of which were denied. The primary issues included the failure to establish a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary’s foreign employer and the inability to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) upheld the denial on appeal.
Key Issues
The primary issues in this case included:
Qualifying Relationship: The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary’s foreign employer. Despite claims that the Beneficiary solely owned and controlled both the U.S. and foreign entities, the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate this relationship.
Managerial or Executive Capacity: The Director also found that the Beneficiary’s role lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate that the duties were primarily managerial or executive. The Petitioner failed to provide clear descriptions of the duties performed by the Beneficiary and his subordinates, and the staffing levels were insufficient to support the claim of a managerial role.
Employer-Employee Relationship: The Director questioned whether the Beneficiary’s sole ownership and control of both entities disqualified him from being considered an “employee” of the U.S. employer, a requirement for the EB-1 classification.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) made several key findings:
Inadequate Evidence of Qualifying Relationship: The Petitioner submitted documents such as stock certificates and articles of incorporation but did not adequately address the requirement to prove that the foreign entity purchased shares of the U.S. company, failing to establish a qualifying relationship.
Vague Job Descriptions: The AAO found that the job descriptions provided by the Petitioner were vague and did not clearly outline the managerial or executive duties of the Beneficiary. The descriptions lacked specificity, making it difficult to ascertain the nature of the Beneficiary’s day-to-day responsibilities.
Insufficient Staffing Levels: The AAO noted concerns regarding the Petitioner’s staffing levels at the time of filing. The minimal staff at each retail location suggested that the Beneficiary would be involved in operational duties rather than performing primarily managerial or executive functions.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered in this decision included:
Organizational Documents: The Petitioner provided various business documents, including stock certificates and business registration forms, but these were not sufficient to prove a qualifying relationship.
Job Descriptions and Organizational Structure: The Petitioner provided vague job descriptions and an unclear organizational structure, which did not adequately support the claim that the Beneficiary’s role was primarily managerial or executive.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that eligibility for the EB-1 classification requires clear and detailed evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary’s duties are primarily managerial or executive in nature. The Petitioner’s failure to provide sufficient evidence regarding the qualifying relationship and the nature of the Beneficiary’s role were significant factors in the denial of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied. The Petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer or demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, leading to the denial of the petition.
