Date of Decision: November 7, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Industrial Control Equipment
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Technical Manager
Field: Industrial Control Equipment
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a distributor and tester of industrial control equipment, sought to employ the beneficiary as a Technical 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 a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer. The petitioner appealed the decision, arguing that the Director misinterpreted the definition of “branch” and did not properly consider evidence of the petitioner’s business activity abroad. However, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal.
Key Issues
The Director’s denial was based on the following findings:
- Qualifying Relationship: The Director found that the petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship between the U.S. entity and the foreign employer. Specifically, the Director questioned whether the petitioner had a branch office in Oman, where the beneficiary was claimed to have worked before entering the United States. The petitioner described its operations in Oman as a branch office but provided evidence that was inconsistent with that claim. The petitioner’s agency agreement in Oman did not demonstrate that it had an operational branch employing the beneficiary. Instead, the evidence suggested that the petitioner was conducting business in Oman through an agent rather than directly through a branch.
- Inconsistent Documentation: The petitioner submitted various documents, including wire transfers and tax records, to support its claim of operating a branch in Oman. However, the Director found these documents insufficient to establish that the petitioner had a legitimate branch office in Oman. The wire transfers, for example, did not resemble regular salary payments, and there were significant gaps and inconsistencies in the amounts and timing of these transfers.
USCIS Findings
Upon review, the AAO upheld the Director’s decision. The AAO agreed that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate that it had a qualifying branch office in Oman. The AAO noted that the petitioner’s evidence was more consistent with the activities of an agent conducting business on behalf of the petitioner, rather than the petitioner operating a branch office. The lack of direct evidence of a staffed and operational branch office in Oman was a critical factor in the decision to dismiss the appeal.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted wire transfer records, tax documents, and an agency agreement. However, the AAO found that these documents did not adequately support the petitioner’s claim of a qualifying relationship through a branch office in Oman.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing clear, consistent, and verifiable evidence to establish a qualifying relationship between the U.S. entity and the foreign employer. The discrepancies and lack of credible documentation were significant factors in the dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that it had a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer through a branch office in Oman, as required for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
