Date of Decision: June 17, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Automotive Spare Parts Distribution
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General Director
Field: Automotive Spare Parts Distribution
Nationality: Russian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a New Jersey-based entity operating as an automotive spare parts distributor, sought to employ the beneficiary as its General Director. The beneficiary previously held a similar role at the petitioner’s affiliate in Russia. The petition aimed to classify the beneficiary under the EB-1C category for multinational managers or executives, allowing the transfer to the U.S. to continue employment in an executive capacity.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was whether the beneficiary, as the sole owner of the petitioner, could be considered to work in an “executive capacity” under U.S. immigration law. The director determined that the beneficiary did not meet the required criteria because there was no evidence of supervision or direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders, which is necessary to qualify as an executive under the law.
USCIS Findings
USCIS determined that the petitioner failed to establish an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary, given his ownership and control of the company. The lack of a supervisory structure above the beneficiary disqualified him from being considered an employee in an executive capacity. Moreover, USCIS found inconsistencies in the evidence provided, particularly concerning the petitioner’s organizational structure and the roles of other employees, further weakening the petitioner’s case.
Supporting Evidence
Key pieces of evidence included the petitioner’s organizational chart, federal tax returns, and business documents. However, the evidence presented did not sufficiently prove that the beneficiary’s daily responsibilities were primarily executive in nature or that he was subject to oversight by higher authorities within the company.
Additional Notes
USCIS also noted that during a site visit, there were inconsistencies in the petitioner’s claims regarding the number of employees and their roles within the company. These discrepancies further undermined the credibility of the petition and contributed to the denial.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The petition was denied, and the decision of the Texas Service Center was affirmed. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met the necessary requirements for classification as a multinational executive.
