Date of Decision: October 11, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: High-Performance Laser Manufacturing
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Vice President, Process Engineering
Field: High-Performance Laser Manufacturing
Nationality: Australian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Sustained
Case Overview
The petitioner, a publicly traded U.S. corporation specializing in high-performance laser manufacturing, sought to employ the beneficiary as vice president of process engineering under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.
The Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer, failed to demonstrate that there was a valid office abroad where the beneficiary was employed, and did not prove that the beneficiary was employed abroad by a qualifying entity for at least one year within the three years preceding the petition.
On appeal, the petitioner argued that the director misinterpreted the statutory and regulatory requirements and provided additional evidence supporting its claim. Upon de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office determined that the petitioner met its burden of proof and sustained the appeal.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary had been employed abroad by a qualifying entity and whether the prospective U.S. employer was the same entity or an affiliate of the beneficiary’s foreign employer.
The director concluded that because the beneficiary was directly employed by the petitioner while based in Australia, rather than by a separate Australian subsidiary or affiliate, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a qualifying relationship. The director also reasoned that the regulations imply the need for a separate foreign office conducting business in the beneficiary’s country of residence.
On appeal, the petitioner argued that the statutory and regulatory language does not require the existence of a foreign branch or affiliate if the beneficiary is directly employed by a U.S. multinational entity while working abroad. The petitioner provided tax records, employment documents, and corporate filings confirming that the beneficiary had been continuously employed by the U.S. petitioner while managing process engineering operations across the company’s U.S. and Asian sites.
The Administrative Appeals Office determined that the statutory and regulatory requirements do not preclude a direct employment model, provided the beneficiary is employed by a multinational entity and meets all other eligibility criteria. The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the beneficiary had been employed abroad by the same employer and would continue to serve in a managerial role upon relocation to the United States.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office concluded that the director’s interpretation of the statutory and regulatory requirements was flawed. Key findings included:
- The petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary had been employed abroad by a qualifying multinational entity for at least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition.
- The regulatory requirement that the U.S. petitioner be “the same employer” as the foreign employer was satisfied, as the beneficiary had been directly employed by the U.S. entity while performing managerial duties abroad.
- The petitioner provided evidence that the beneficiary’s role involved discretionary decision-making, oversight of process engineering functions, and management of 75 direct and indirect reports across multiple locations.
- The record confirmed that the petitioner would continue to conduct business in the United States and at least one other country, satisfying the multinational organization requirement.
Based on these findings, the appeal was sustained, and the petition was approved.
Supporting Evidence
- Australian Taxation Office records confirming the beneficiary’s employment by the petitioner from 2019 to 2022
- Corporate filings demonstrating the petitioner’s multinational operations
- Job description outlining the beneficiary’s managerial role and responsibilities
- Organizational charts showing the beneficiary’s position and reporting structure
- Correspondence and operational records confirming the beneficiary’s management of global process engineering functions
Additional Notes
The Administrative Appeals Office emphasized that the statutory and regulatory language does not require the existence of a separate foreign entity if the U.S. multinational employer directly employs the beneficiary while working abroad. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent of the EB-1C classification, which aims to facilitate the permanent transfer of key managers and executives within multinational organizations.
Additionally, the decision reaffirmed that petitioners must provide clear, verifiable documentation demonstrating that a beneficiary has held a qualifying managerial or executive role, regardless of the employment model used.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Appeal sustained.
Reasoning: The petitioner successfully established that the beneficiary was employed abroad by a qualifying multinational entity and would continue to serve in a managerial capacity in the United States. The director’s decision was withdrawn based on an incorrect interpretation of the statutory and regulatory requirements.
