Date of Decision: September 25, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Cosmetic Products
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Cosmetic Products
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a company specializing in the sale of cosmetic products, 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, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that it had a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer, that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in an executive capacity, that the petitioner had the ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage, and that the petitioner was doing business as defined by the regulations.
Upon de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office determined that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States, which was dispositive to the case. As a result, the appeal was dismissed without addressing the remaining grounds for denial.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this appeal was whether the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States. The petitioner did not claim that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity, so the analysis was restricted to executive capacity.
The petitioner listed multiple executive responsibilities in the beneficiary’s job description, including strategic planning, hiring department managers, overseeing operations, consulting with stakeholders, and reviewing financial performance. However, the record contained documentation reflecting the beneficiary’s involvement in operational duties, which undermined the claim that the role was primarily executive.
Invoices, permits, and purchase agreements submitted as evidence indicated that the beneficiary was directly handling day-to-day business tasks such as paying for operational expenses, managing construction quotes, and overseeing digital marketing efforts. Additionally, the beneficiary’s resume included duties such as website management, online promotions, and marketing event planning, which suggested a hands-on operational role rather than an executive function.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office upheld the director’s decision, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary’s U.S. employment would be primarily executive. The decision cited the following reasons:
- The petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to support its claim that the beneficiary was primarily engaged in high-level executive functions such as long-term planning and policy development.
- The beneficiary’s documented activities in the U.S. involved direct operational duties that are inconsistent with an executive capacity.
- The petitioner did not adequately explain or resolve discrepancies regarding the beneficiary’s role, such as conflicting job duties listed on different documents.
- Tax records submitted near the filing date indicated that the petitioner had only two employees at the time, raising concerns about whether the beneficiary had sufficient support to be relieved of non-qualifying operational tasks.
The Administrative Appeals Office also noted that the approval of an L-1A nonimmigrant petition does not automatically guarantee EB-1C eligibility, as the two classifications have different evidentiary standards.
Supporting Evidence
- Job description detailing the beneficiary’s proposed executive duties
- Organizational chart listing the beneficiary’s subordinates
- Financial records and tax filings showing the company’s staffing levels
- Invoices, permits, and purchase orders documenting the beneficiary’s involvement in operational duties
- Emails and correspondence related to business management and stakeholder communication
Additional Notes
The Administrative Appeals Office emphasized that an EB-1C petitioner must clearly demonstrate that a beneficiary’s primary duties align with the statutory definition of executive capacity. Simply holding an executive title or making discretionary decisions does not automatically satisfy the classification requirements.
The ruling also reinforced that inconsistencies in job responsibilities, staffing levels, and operational involvement must be reconciled with independent, objective evidence. The petitioner’s failure to do so contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s U.S. employment would be in an executive capacity. The evidence submitted indicated a significant level of operational involvement, and the petitioner did not provide sufficient supporting documentation to establish that the beneficiary would primarily engage in executive functions.