Date of Decision: May 25, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Electronic Security & Investments
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Corporate President
Field: Electronic Security & Investments
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a company involved in electronic security and investments, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its corporate president under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that: (1) the beneficiary would be employed in the U.S. in an executive capacity; (2) the beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity; and (3) the petitioner had been doing business for at least one year prior to the petition’s filing date.
On appeal, the petitioner submitted additional evidence and argued that the Director disregarded evidence of eligibility and failed to give deference to the prior approval of a nonimmigrant petition. However, after a de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the petitioner failed to overcome the grounds for denial and dismissed the appeal.
Key Issues
The primary issues were whether the petitioner could demonstrate that the beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the U.S. in an executive capacity and whether the petitioner met the “doing business” requirement. The AAO determined that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish these requirements, particularly concerning the beneficiary’s role and the petitioner’s business activities.
USCIS Findings
The AAO found that the petitioner did not establish a proper employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary. Additionally, the petitioner did not provide enough detailed information about the beneficiary’s daily duties to prove that they were primarily executive in nature. The AAO also concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate that it had been “doing business” for at least one year prior to filing the petition.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted job descriptions, organizational charts, and financial records. However, the evidence was found to be insufficient and inconsistent with the petitioner’s claims.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that to qualify for the EB-1C classification, a petitioner must provide clear and consistent documentation proving both the executive capacity of the beneficiary and the petitioner’s ongoing business activities.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying executive capacity and did not demonstrate the required “doing business” activity for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
