Date of Decision: September 8, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Financial Planning and Analysis
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Comptroller
Field: Financial Planning and Analysis
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The Petitioner, a transportation, import, and export logistics company, sought to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a Comptroller under the EB-1C immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. The primary role of the Beneficiary was described as overseeing financial planning and analysis, which the company argued was essential for its operations in the United States.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was whether the Beneficiary’s role met the statutory definition of a managerial position under U.S. immigration law. The Director concluded that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would primarily be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, as required by the EB-1C classification.
USCIS Findings
Upon review, the USCIS determined that the Beneficiary’s job description contained a mix of managerial and operational tasks. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary’s duties would be primarily managerial in nature. The findings highlighted discrepancies between the initial and revised job descriptions provided by the Petitioner, which contributed to the conclusion that the Beneficiary’s role did not qualify as a managerial position under the applicable standards.
Supporting Evidence
The Petitioner submitted various documents, including job descriptions, organizational charts, and letters from company officials. However, the evidence did not convincingly demonstrate that the Beneficiary was relieved from performing non-qualifying operational tasks, nor that he primarily managed an essential function within the organization.
Additional Notes
The appeal also failed to address inconsistencies in the job descriptions provided, which further weakened the Petitioner’s case. The supporting documentation indicated that the Beneficiary performed a wide range of administrative tasks, suggesting that his role was more akin to an office manager than a function manager with the required level of discretion and authority.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, and the denial of the EB-1C petition was upheld, as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity.
