Date of Decision: March 16, 2015
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Investment and International Trade
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Vice President
Field: Investment and International Trade
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Summarily Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, engaged in investment and international trade, sought to employ the beneficiary as its Vice President under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition on August 21, 2014, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity in the United States.
The petitioner filed an appeal on September 22, 2014, indicating on Form I-290B that it intended to submit a brief and/or additional evidence within 30 calendar days. However, the record shows that no such brief or evidence was ever submitted. As a result, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) summarily dismissed the appeal due to the petitioner’s failure to identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director’s decision.
Key Issues
The primary issue on appeal was whether the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity in the United States. The AAO found that the petitioner did not dispute or address the director’s findings and failed to submit any additional evidence or arguments to support its appeal, leading to the summary dismissal.
USCIS Findings
The AAO determined that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required for the EB-1C classification. The petitioner’s failure to submit a brief or additional evidence and its lack of response to the director’s adverse findings led to the summary dismissal of the appeal.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner indicated its intention to submit additional evidence but failed to do so. As a result, the AAO found the record insufficient to establish eligibility for the EB-1C classification.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of responding to adverse findings and submitting additional evidence when indicated. The petitioner’s failure to follow through with its stated intention to supplement the record contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was summarily dismissed. The petitioner did not successfully establish that the beneficiary’s proposed duties in the United States would be primarily managerial or executive in nature.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
