Date of Decision: January 25, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Business Development
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Director of Business Development
Field: Business Development
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, F-S-T-&S-, Inc., a used truck dealership, sought to employ the beneficiary as its Director of Business Development under the EB-1C immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity.
However, the Nebraska Service Center initially denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Key Issues
The key issue in this case was whether the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The director’s denial was based on the failure to establish this requirement, leading to the initial denial of the petition and subsequent motions for reconsideration and reopening.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS, particularly the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), found that the procedural history of this case involved some confusion regarding the motion process. The AAO noted that the Director’s decision contained errors, such as incorrectly referring to the petition as an “application” and incorrectly citing grounds for denying the motion to reconsider. The AAO emphasized the need for the Director to address the merits of the petitioner’s arguments in its motions before a proper decision could be made.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner presented arguments citing an adopted decision by USCIS, which served as binding policy guidance. This evidence was crucial in demonstrating that the initial denial may have been based on an incorrect application of law or policy. However, the AAO determined that the Director had not sufficiently addressed these arguments.
Additional Notes
The AAO also noted concerns regarding the petitioner’s corporate structure. A public records search revealed the existence of a similarly named corporation that raised questions about the identity and operations of the petitioning entity. The AAO requested clarifying evidence to confirm that the petitioning entity was indeed the used truck dealership and not the newer, similarly named entity.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision of the Director was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the AAO’s analysis.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
