Date of Decision: SEP. 09, 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
Field: Executive Management
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, an operator of a liquor store, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its executive under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The beneficiary was to fill a key role within the company’s U.S. operations. However, the petition faced several challenges related to the beneficiary’s managerial or executive capacity in the U.S., as well as the continued operation and qualification of the beneficiary’s former foreign employer.
Key Issues
The main issues that led to the denial of the petition included the inability of the petitioner to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. Moreover, the closure of the foreign employer was a significant factor, as it removed the necessary qualifying relationship between the petitioner and the foreign entity, which is a requirement for the EB-1C classification.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS found that the petitioner failed to meet the necessary regulatory requirements for a motion to reopen. The petitioner did not provide new, substantive evidence or adequately address the deficiencies pointed out in previous decisions. The foreign employer’s closure was particularly damaging to the petitioner’s case, as it undermined the foundational qualifying relationship required for the visa classification.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner’s attempts to provide additional information, such as the incorporation of new entities, were noted but did not meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate the beneficiary’s eligibility. The lack of specific evidence addressing the claimed errors or new facts supporting the motion to reopen further weakened the case.
Additional Notes
The petitioner’s argument that previous USCIS decisions were erroneous and that they deserved a favorable outcome as equitable relief was dismissed. The USCIS clarified that it does not have the authority to apply equitable estoppel to preclude lawful action, and therefore, such arguments were outside the scope of their jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petitioner’s motion to reopen, filed in December 2020, was dismissed, and the petition remains denied. The USCIS emphasized that the petition did not meet the regulatory requirements necessary to grant the motion and that the beneficiary is no longer eligible for the benefit sought due to the closure of the foreign employer.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
