Date of Decision: March 3, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Import, Export, and Consulting Operations
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Director
Field: Import, Export, and Consulting Operations
Nationality: Brazilian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, an import, export, and consulting company, sought to employ the beneficiary as a Director under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. This visa category allows U.S. employers to transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. The beneficiary was intended to fill a key managerial role within the company, which was seeking to expand its operations in the U.S.
Key Issues
The central issue in this case was the petitioner’s ability to demonstrate that it had the financial ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage of $40,000 annually, starting from the priority date of December 22, 2017. The petitioner provided tax returns, an unaudited balance sheet, and bank statements as evidence. However, the documentation was deemed insufficient by the USCIS.
USCIS Findings
USCIS determined that the petitioner failed to establish its ability to pay the proffered wage, as required by 8 C.F.R. §204.5(g)(2). The petitioner’s 2017 tax return showed insufficient net income and net current assets to cover the beneficiary’s wage. Additionally, the petitioner’s reliance on post-filing financial transactions and unaudited financial statements was not considered acceptable under the regulatory requirements.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted a 2017 tax return, an unaudited balance sheet, and various bank statements. However, USCIS found that the evidence did not demonstrate a consistent ability to meet the proffered wage from the priority date onward. The financial documents presented were not sufficient to establish the required financial capability, particularly since they were unaudited and included transactions that occurred after the priority date.
Additional Notes
USCIS also noted that the petitioner’s claim of employing three workers was inconsistent with its financial records, which did not show any employee salaries or wages. This inconsistency raised concerns about the company’s staffing capacity to support the beneficiary in a managerial role, although this was not a primary basis for the denial.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed due to the petitioner’s failure to establish its ability to pay the proffered wage as required.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
