Date of Decision: January 5, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Executive Management
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Executive Manager
Field: Executive Management
Nationality: Brazilian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a U.S.-based business, sought to employ the beneficiary, an executive manager from Brazil, under the EB-1C immigrant classification for multinational managers and executives. The petition aimed to secure permanent residency for the beneficiary based on their managerial role both abroad and in the United States. The petition was initially denied by the Texas Service Center, and the subsequent appeal was also dismissed by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO).
Key Issues
The main issues leading to the denial were the petitioner’s failure to establish that it had been “doing business” for at least one year before the petition was filed, its inability to demonstrate the capacity to pay the proffered wage, and insufficient evidence that the beneficiary had been and would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had been continuously conducting business for the required period. The evidence submitted, such as invoices from 2019, did not cover the period leading up to the filing of the petition in 2017. Additionally, the petitioner failed to prove its financial ability to pay the beneficiary’s wage. The lack of detailed job descriptions and evidence of the beneficiary’s managerial duties further contributed to the denial. The petitioner’s operation from a residential apartment raised additional concerns about its ability to support a managerial position.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence primarily consisted of invoices issued in 2019, which were insufficient to establish continuous business operations since 2016. There was also a lack of required financial documentation, such as annual reports, tax returns, or audited financial statements. The petitioner did not submit detailed descriptions of the beneficiary’s job duties or evidence of sufficient staffing to support the beneficiary in a managerial role.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that in any future filings, the petitioner would need to provide comprehensive documentation, including financial records, detailed job descriptions, and evidence of sufficient business operations and resources to support a managerial role.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen the case was dismissed, and the denial was upheld.
