Date of Decision: FEB. 3, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Consumer Goods Distribution
Beneficiary Information
Profession: CEO/President
Field: Consumer Goods Distribution
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a distributor of consumer goods, sought to employ the beneficiary as its CEO/President under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. This classification enables a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was whether the beneficiary’s employment abroad met the criteria for a managerial or executive capacity as required by the EB-1C classification. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition based on the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary’s foreign employment qualified as managerial or executive. Subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider were also dismissed by the Director for failing to meet the requirements and for insufficient evidence supporting the beneficiary’s managerial or executive role.
USCIS Findings
Upon appeal, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director of the Texas Service Center erred by not addressing the petitioner’s motion to reopen in his final decision. The appeal highlighted that the dismissal was incorrectly based solely on the motion to reconsider, without addressing the motion to reopen, leading to the decision being withdrawn and remanded for further consideration.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence included employment agreements and organizational charts provided by the petitioner to demonstrate the beneficiary’s role and responsibilities in a managerial or executive capacity. However, the evidence was initially deemed insufficient by the Director to satisfy the requirements of the EB-1C classification.
Additional Notes
The AAO’s decision to remand the case underscores the importance of considering all aspects of a petitioner’s motion, particularly when multiple motions are filed concurrently. The AAO instructed the Director to reassess the combined motion to reopen and reconsider and to issue a new decision that addresses the entirety of the petitioner’s arguments and evidence.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and reconsider was granted, and the matter was remanded to the Director for a new decision.
