Date of Decision: August 30, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Fleet Management Software and Systems
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Engineering Manager
Field: Fleet Management Software and Systems
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, I-Inc., a provider of fleet management software and systems, sought to employ the beneficiary as an Engineering Manager under the EB-1C category, designated for multinational executives or managers. The petitioner’s aim was to transfer the beneficiary to the United States to continue managing essential functions within the organization. The case was initially denied by the Texas Service Center, primarily due to insufficient evidence that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was the failure to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role, both abroad and in the United States, met the requirements of a managerial capacity under the EB-1C classification. The Director concluded that the evidence provided did not sufficiently prove that the beneficiary’s duties were primarily managerial, rather than operational.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS Director noted that while the petitioner claimed the beneficiary was managing an essential function, the evidence did not support this claim adequately. The job duties described included significant involvement in product design, sales, and training, which appeared to go beyond the managerial responsibilities defined under the statutory requirements. Additionally, there was inconsistency in the job descriptions provided, raising questions about the true nature of the beneficiary’s duties.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including job descriptions and statements, to support the claim that the beneficiary managed an essential function. However, these documents were considered too general and inconsistent, failing to convincingly establish that the beneficiary’s role was primarily managerial. The petitioner’s workforce also decreased significantly, which might have impacted the beneficiary’s ability to perform in a managerial capacity.
Additional Notes
The appeal was remanded for further consideration because the initial denial did not fully evaluate the beneficiary’s eligibility as a function manager. The Director was instructed to re-evaluate the case with a focus on whether the beneficiary’s roles both abroad and in the United States fit within the statutory definition of managerial capacity.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The case was remanded for further review and a new decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
