Date of Decision: March 15, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Cheese Manufacturing and Distribution
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Production Manager
Field: Specialty Cheese Production
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, Q-P-G- LLC, a cheese manufacturing and distribution company, sought to employ a beneficiary as a production manager under the EB-1 classification for multinational managers or executives. The petition was filed to transfer the beneficiary from a foreign entity where he was employed in a managerial capacity to continue in a similar role in the United States.
Key Issues
The Texas Service Center denied the petition on three grounds:
Failure to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity.
Lack of sufficient evidence that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity prior to his transfer to the U.S.
Inability to prove a qualifying relationship between the U.S. petitioner and the foreign entity.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) conducted a de novo review and partially overturned the initial decision by confirming the qualifying relationship between the U.S. petitioner and the foreign entity. However, the AAO upheld the denial based on the following findings:
U.S. Employment in a Managerial Capacity: The petitioner failed to provide a detailed description of the beneficiary’s day-to-day duties or sufficient evidence that the beneficiary would be managing other professionals or supervisors in the U.S. The job descriptions provided were vague, inconsistent, and did not adequately demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role would be primarily managerial rather than operational.
Employment Abroad in a Managerial Capacity: Similar issues were found with the beneficiary’s role in the foreign entity. The petitioner did not provide a detailed and consistent job description or sufficient evidence that the beneficiary supervised professional employees abroad. The documentation suggested that the beneficiary primarily engaged in operational tasks rather than managing the company or a department.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various job descriptions, organizational charts, and affidavits throughout the process. However, these documents were either inconsistent or lacked the detail needed to substantiate the claims of managerial capacity. Additionally, the evidence provided regarding the company’s organizational structure and staffing levels did not support the assertion that the beneficiary was relieved from performing day-to-day operational tasks.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of consistency and detail in the documentation provided to support such petitions. The discrepancies in the job descriptions and the lack of evidence regarding the petitioner’s organizational structure were critical in the final decision.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity both abroad and in the United States. The AAO reaffirmed the necessity for detailed, consistent, and well-substantiated evidence to support EB-1 petitions for multinational managers or executives.
This case underscores the rigorous standards applied by the USCIS in evaluating EB-1 petitions, particularly regarding the managerial or executive capacity of the beneficiary. Companies seeking to utilize this immigration classification must ensure that their documentation is thorough, consistent, and clearly establishes the managerial nature of the beneficiary’s role.
