Date of Decision: August 5, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
Field: Service and Distribution for Communications Test Equipment
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, N-G-INC, a service and distribution center specializing in communications test equipment, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its Chief Financial Officer and Vice President. The petition was filed under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers, a category that allows U.S. employers to transfer qualified foreign employees to the United States to work in executive or managerial roles.
Key Issues
The petition faced several issues leading to its denial. Primarily, the Director of the Texas Service Center concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would serve in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. Additionally, there were concerns about whether the beneficiary had previously acted in such a capacity abroad, whether the foreign employer was conducting business as required by the regulations, whether a bona fide job offer had been made, and whether the petitioner had the ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage.
USCIS Findings
USCIS upheld the initial decision, agreeing with the Director on most grounds for denial. The only exception was the Director’s conclusion regarding the business activities of the foreign employer, which was withdrawn. However, the motions to reopen and reconsider were ultimately denied due to their untimely submission. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that their late filing was beyond their control or reasonable under the circumstances.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner provided limited new evidence in their motions, which contributed to the denial. They contended that an extension for filing was granted, but USCIS clarified that such an extension could not be applied to the regulatory deadline for filing motions. The petitioner’s claims of an emergency that necessitated an extension were unsupported by the required documentation.
Additional Notes
USCIS emphasized the importance of adhering to the strict deadlines for filing motions. The petitioner’s failure to meet these deadlines, despite their acknowledgment of the requirements, played a significant role in the denial of their motions to reopen and reconsider.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were both denied, affirming the original decision to deny the petition.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
