Date of Decision: January 3, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Business Analytics and Software Development
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Project Manager
Field: Business Analytics and Software Development
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a company that develops business analytics software, sought to employ the beneficiary, a project manager, under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The goal was to enable the beneficiary to continue working in the United States in a managerial capacity. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center initially denied the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to establish that it had been doing business in the U.S. for at least one year before filing the petition.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the petitioner had been regularly and continuously conducting business in the U.S. for at least one year prior to the filing date of the petition. The Director found that the evidence provided, including press releases and partial tax returns, was insufficient to demonstrate ongoing business operations during the required timeframe.
USCIS Findings
The Director determined that the evidence submitted by the petitioner did not adequately prove regular, continuous, and systematic business activity in the year leading up to the petition’s filing. Although the petitioner provided some invoices and a consulting agreement, the Director noted that these documents did not offer sufficient detail about the services provided or confirm that the petitioner had performed any consulting work during the relevant period.
Supporting Evidence
On appeal, the petitioner submitted additional documents, including prior income tax returns, master service agreements, and statements of work, which were not available during the initial review. These documents were material to establishing the petitioner’s business activity, but the Director had not fully considered them, particularly the tax returns showing significant gross receipts in the relevant period.
Additional Notes
The AAO found that the Director’s decision did not fully consider the evidence provided or explain why the tax returns and other documents did not meet the petitioner’s burden of proof. The case was remanded for a new decision that would include a comprehensive analysis of all relevant documentation, including the materials submitted on appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review. The AAO instructed the Director to conduct a thorough evaluation of the evidence, particularly the tax returns and other business documentation, to determine if the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
