Date of Decision: September 19, 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: Cheese Manufacturing and Distribution
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The Petitioner, a cheese manufacturing and distribution company, sought to employ the Beneficiary as its Production Manager 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 denied the petition, citing three main issues: (1) the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity; (2) the Beneficiary was not employed abroad in a managerial capacity before entering the United States; and (3) the Petitioner did not demonstrate a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary’s foreign employer. The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen and reconsider, submitting additional documentation. However, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) denied both motions, upholding the original denial.
Key Issues
The primary issues in this case included:
Managerial Capacity in the United States: The Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary’s duties in the United States would be primarily managerial. The evidence suggested that the Beneficiary would spend significant time on sales and distribution activities rather than on managing the company’s operations.
Managerial Capacity Abroad: The Director found that the Beneficiary’s role abroad also did not qualify as managerial, as the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary supervised a sufficient number of professional employees or managed an essential function.
Qualifying Relationship: The Petitioner’s documentation did not convincingly establish a qualifying relationship between the U.S. company and the foreign employer. The evidence presented was inconsistent, particularly concerning the organizational structure and the nature of the Beneficiary’s role in both entities.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) made several key findings:
Vague Job Descriptions: The Petitioner’s job descriptions for the Beneficiary were found to be vague and insufficiently detailed. The descriptions did not clearly establish that the Beneficiary’s duties were primarily managerial, nor did they adequately outline the scope of the Beneficiary’s authority or decision-making responsibilities.
Organizational Structure and Staffing: The AAO noted that the Petitioner’s organizational chart and staffing levels were inadequate to support the claim that the Beneficiary would be functioning in a managerial capacity. The evidence indicated that the Beneficiary’s role was more focused on operational tasks rather than high-level management.
Insufficient New Evidence: On motion, the Petitioner submitted new documents, including sales data, revised organizational charts, and job descriptions. However, the AAO found that these documents did not establish the Petitioner’s eligibility as of the petition’s original filing date and were inconsistent with previous submissions.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered in this decision included:
Organizational Charts and Job Descriptions: The revised charts and descriptions were inconsistent with the original filings and did not convincingly demonstrate that the Beneficiary’s role was managerial in nature.
Sales and Financial Data: The Petitioner provided sales and financial data that was dated after the petition’s filing, which the AAO found insufficient to establish eligibility at the time of filing.
Third-Party Providers: The Petitioner claimed reliance on third-party providers to manage non-managerial tasks; however, the evidence did not demonstrate that such arrangements were in place at the time of filing.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing clear, consistent, and detailed evidence when petitioning for an EB-1 classification. The lack of specificity in the Beneficiary’s job descriptions and the inconsistencies in the organizational structure were critical factors in the denial of the appeal. The AAO also highlighted that eligibility must be established at the time of filing, and any subsequent changes or additions cannot retroactively justify the original petition.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied. The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States, nor did it demonstrate a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer, leading to the denial of the petition.
