Date of Decision: January 8, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Business Management
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General and Operations Manager
Field: Business Management
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Motion to Reopen/Reconsider Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a Florida-based limited liability company, sought to employ the beneficiary as its General and Operations Manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition on April 29, 2009, on two primary grounds: (1) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary’s proposed employment would be in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, and (2) the petitioner failed to establish its ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage.
After several motions were filed with the service center, the matter was appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The AAO upheld the Director’s adverse conclusions on September 27, 2012, dismissing the appeal. The petitioner subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, arguing that the AAO erred in its decision regarding both the employment capacity and the ability to pay. However, the AAO found that the petitioner’s supporting brief did not meet the requirements for either a motion to reopen or reconsider and dismissed the combined motion.
Key Issues
The central issues included whether the petitioner could demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity and whether the petitioner had the financial ability to pay the proffered wage. The AAO determined that the petitioner failed to provide specific, detailed evidence to meet these requirements and that the arguments presented did not constitute new facts or legal errors that would warrant reopening or reconsidering the case.
USCIS Findings
The AAO concluded that the petitioner did not provide new facts or legal arguments that would justify reopening the case. The AAO also emphasized that simply reiterating previous arguments or submitting general allegations of error is not sufficient for a motion to reconsider. The AAO highlighted that the petitioner did not demonstrate how the previous decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted an unsigned letter, the Form I-290B, and a ten-page brief. However, these documents were found insufficient to meet the requirements for a motion to reopen or reconsider.
Additional Notes
The AAO stressed the importance of providing clear, detailed, and specific evidence to support claims regarding managerial roles and financial capacity under the EB-1C classification. Motions must show proper cause and be based on new, relevant evidence or legal errors that could affect the outcome.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The combined motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met the requirements for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
