Date of Decision: June 5, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Shipping and Receiving Services
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Shipping and Receiving Services
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a provider of shipping and receiving services, sought to employ the beneficiary as its President under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary’s duties, either abroad or in the United States, were primarily managerial or executive in nature.
The petitioner appealed the decision, arguing that the denial was a result of discrimination against a small business owner and provided a statement seeking to address the grounds for denial. However, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal, affirming the director’s decision.
Key Issues
The primary issue on appeal was whether the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role in the United States and abroad was primarily managerial or executive in nature. The AAO found that the petitioner did not provide sufficiently detailed job descriptions for the beneficiary’s positions and that the beneficiary’s duties involved significant non-qualifying tasks, such as line work, which did not meet the statutory requirements for a managerial or executive role.
USCIS Findings
The AAO determined that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required for the EB-1C classification. The petitioner failed to provide a clear and specific job description that adequately demonstrated the managerial or executive nature of the beneficiary’s duties. Additionally, the AAO noted that the staffing levels and organizational structure did not support the claim that the beneficiary was primarily engaged in qualifying managerial or executive duties.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including job descriptions, organizational charts, and financial statements. 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 clear, consistent, and detailed job descriptions that accurately reflect 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
