Date of Decision: March 28, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Solution Design
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Director of Solution Design
Field: Printing, Fulfillment, Customer Service & Outsourcing Solutions
Nationality: German
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, A-D-S LLC, described as a provider of printing, fulfillment, customer service, and outsourcing solutions, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as the Director of Solution Design under the EB-1C immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. The beneficiary had previously held project management roles at the petitioner’s affiliates in Russia and Germany before transferring to the U.S. under an L-1A nonimmigrant visa.
Key Issues
The main issue in this case revolved around whether the beneficiary’s previous employment abroad qualified as a managerial role under U.S. immigration law. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center determined that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that the beneficiary had been employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Specifically, the job descriptions provided by the petitioner were deemed too broad, vague, and lacking in detail to support the claimed managerial role.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary’s managerial capacity abroad. The descriptions of the beneficiary’s duties were considered insufficiently detailed, and the petitioner did not provide enough specific information regarding the tasks performed or the delegation of operational duties to other employees. Furthermore, while the beneficiary was involved in managing individual projects, the petitioner did not demonstrate that the beneficiary managed an essential function within the organization as required for the EB-1C classification.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner provided breakdowns of the beneficiary’s duties in Russia and Germany, including oversight of request management, project management, and communication with external parties. However, these descriptions were not detailed enough to illustrate the managerial nature of the beneficiary’s role. Additionally, the petitioner provided minimal information about the employees who would have relieved the beneficiary from performing non-managerial tasks.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing specific and detailed descriptions of job duties to meet the definitions of managerial or executive capacity under U.S. immigration law. General terms such as “oversight” and “directing” were not considered sufficient without further elaboration on the actual tasks performed.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, and the denial of the petition was upheld. The petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to establish that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
