Date of Decision: March 2, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Wholesale Merchandising
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Wholesale Merchandising
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a U.S. entity claiming to operate as a wholesale merchant of herbal supplements, gasoline, and convenience store sundries, 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 failed to establish that it had a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s former employer abroad or that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity.
The petitioner filed an appeal, arguing that the director had incorrectly applied the law and had imposed an unfairly high evidentiary burden. However, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal, finding that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the necessary qualifying relationship or to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role in the United States would be primarily managerial or executive in nature.
Key Issues
The primary issues on appeal were whether the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish that a qualifying relationship existed between the U.S. entity and the foreign employer and whether the evidence demonstrated that the beneficiary’s role in the United States would be primarily managerial or executive in nature. The AAO found that the petitioner’s ownership structures did not meet the regulatory definitions of “affiliate” or “subsidiary” and that the job description for the beneficiary’s proposed role was too vague to establish the required managerial or executive capacity.
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 both the qualifying relationship between the U.S. entity and the foreign employer and the managerial or executive nature of the beneficiary’s duties in the United States. The appeal was dismissed on these grounds.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including corporate and financial documents related to the U.S. and foreign entities, as well as a job description for the beneficiary. However, the AAO found these materials insufficient to address the deficiencies noted by the director.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing clear, consistent, and detailed evidence to establish eligibility for the EB-1C classification. The lack of specific, reliable documentation regarding both the qualifying relationship and the managerial or executive nature of the beneficiary’s role 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, nor did the petitioner demonstrate a qualifying relationship between the U.S. entity and the foreign employer.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
