Date of Decision: June 8, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Specialty Foam Products Design and Manufacturing
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Senior Project Manager
Field: Specialty Foam Products Design and Manufacturing
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, engaged in the design, manufacture, and sales of specialty foam products, sought to employ the beneficiary as a Senior Project Manager 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 was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity and that the beneficiary would be employed in such a capacity in the United States.
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a brief and additional documents to support its claim. 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 establish that the beneficiary’s role, both abroad and in the United States, was primarily managerial or executive in nature. The AAO found that the job descriptions provided by the petitioner were vague and did not clearly indicate the beneficiary’s daily duties. The petitioner also failed to establish that the beneficiary’s subordinates were supervisory or professional employees, which is required to qualify as a managerial position under the relevant statutes.
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 that the beneficiary’s duties were primarily managerial or executive in nature. The AAO also 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 letters of support. However, the AAO found these materials insufficient to establish that the beneficiary’s role was primarily managerial or executive. The lack of detailed documentation regarding the beneficiary’s day-to-day duties and the discrepancies in the evidence weakened the petitioner’s case.
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 contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not successfully establish that the beneficiary’s duties, both abroad and in the United States, were primarily managerial or executive in nature.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
