Date of Decision: February 7, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Kitchen Equipment Export
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Vice President
Field: Kitchen Equipment Export
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved, then Revoked
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, an exporter of kitchen equipment, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its vice president under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Texas Service Center initially approved the petition but later revoked the approval, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish a qualifying relationship between the foreign and U.S. employers, the ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage, that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, or that the beneficiary would be employed in such a capacity in the U.S. The Director also accused the petitioner and beneficiary of willfully misrepresenting material facts. The petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, which was dismissed, and the case was brought before the AAO on appeal.
Key Issues
The primary issues identified included the petitioner’s failure to establish a qualifying relationship between the foreign and U.S. employers, insufficient evidence of the petitioner’s ability to pay the proffered wage, and the lack of evidence supporting the beneficiary’s managerial or executive capacity abroad and in the U.S. Additionally, the Director’s finding of willful misrepresentation was a significant factor in the decision to revoke the petition’s approval.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS Director determined that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to overcome the issues raised in the Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR). The Director found that the petitioner failed to address the discrepancies in the organizational charts, job descriptions, and financial documents that were critical to establishing the beneficiary’s eligibility. However, upon review, the AAO withdrew the finding of willful misrepresentation, citing a lack of detailed evidence to support the Director’s claim of intentional deception.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including organizational charts, job descriptions, and financial records. However, these were found inadequate by the Director and the AAO due to inconsistencies and lack of sufficient detail. The AAO noted that while the petitioner attempted to address some discrepancies, the evidence provided was insufficient to overcome the grounds for revocation.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing clear and consistent evidence to support claims of managerial capacity, qualifying relationships, and business operations. The AAO also highlighted the need for detailed explanations when allegations of willful misrepresentation are made, withdrawing the Director’s finding due to insufficient supporting evidence.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. While the AAO withdrew the finding of willful misrepresentation, the petitioner failed to overcome the substantive grounds for revocation, including the inability to establish a qualifying relationship and sufficient managerial capacity.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
