Date of Decision: February 13, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Business Administration
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Field: Business Administration
Nationality: Chinese
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a U.S.-based provider of cosmetic services and products, filed an EB-1C petition on behalf of the beneficiary, who was the CEO of the company. The beneficiary, a Chinese national, had previously served as the owner and operator of a company in China before acquiring a majority interest in the U.S. entity. The petition sought to classify the beneficiary as a multinational executive, allowing them to continue their role as CEO in the U.S.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was whether the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the U.S. The USCIS questioned whether the petitioner’s business, a single cosmetic store, was sufficiently complex and mature to justify the need for a full-time multinational executive. The petitioner argued that the beneficiary’s role met the regulatory definition of executive capacity, but the USCIS found that the business’s small size and limited organizational structure did not support this claim.
USCIS Findings
USCIS determined that the beneficiary’s duties, although described as executive in nature, did not demonstrate that they would be primarily engaged in high-level responsibilities. The small scale of the business, with only one store and a relatively simple organizational chart, led USCIS to conclude that the beneficiary would likely be involved in non-qualifying operational tasks. The petitioner’s claim that the business required a full-time multinational executive was found to be unsubstantiated, and the appeal was dismissed.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including an organizational chart, a list of job duties, and a supplementary letter explaining the beneficiary’s role. However, the evidence did not convince USCIS that the business was complex enough to warrant the services of a multinational executive. The petitioner’s arguments about the business’s needs and the beneficiary’s executive responsibilities were deemed insufficient.
Additional Notes
USCIS also addressed the petitioner’s claim that the Director applied the wrong standard of proof and failed to consider certain Congressional intent and a 2017 executive order. The adjudication adhered to the statutory and regulatory provisions, and USCIS found no merit in these additional arguments.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
