Date of Decision: December 16, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Management, Consulting, Investment Company
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Vice President
Field: Management, Consulting, Investment Company
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, identified as a management, consulting, and investment company operating a motel, sought to employ the beneficiary as its Vice President under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary had been employed abroad or would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner filed multiple motions to reopen and reconsider the decision, all of which were ultimately denied.
On the third motion to reopen and reconsider, the petitioner argued that the cumulative evidence in the record supported a finding that the beneficiary had been and would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. However, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the petitioner failed to present new facts or evidence that would warrant reopening the case or reconsidering the previous decision.
Key Issues
The key issue was whether the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary was employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity both abroad and in the United States. The AAO found that the petitioner’s job descriptions were overly broad and lacked specific detail, particularly regarding the beneficiary’s day-to-day activities and responsibilities. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to corroborate the organizational structure of the foreign company, which undermined the credibility of its claims.
USCIS Findings
The AAO determined that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to establish that the beneficiary was employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner’s vague job descriptions and inconsistencies in the organizational structure raised significant doubts about the beneficiary’s role within the organization. The AAO emphasized that a motion to reopen or reconsider must present new, significant evidence or demonstrate that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of the law, which the petitioner failed to do.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including job descriptions, organizational charts, and financial statements. However, the AAO found that this evidence lacked the necessary detail and consistency to support the claim that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Additionally, the evidence did not sufficiently address the specific issues raised in the initial denial.
Additional Notes
The AAO highlighted the importance of providing detailed and consistent evidence when claiming managerial or executive capacity in EB-1C petitions. The petitioner’s failure to provide new facts or sufficiently address the deficiencies identified in previous decisions led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity in the United States, as required for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here