Date of Decision: DEC. 18, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Diamond Trading
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General Manager
Field: Diamond Trading
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved, Later Revoked
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a company engaged in diamond trading, sought to employ the beneficiary as its General Manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The petition was initially approved but later revoked by the Nebraska Service Center Director due to concerns about the qualifying relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary’s former foreign employer.
Key Issues
The primary issues leading to the revocation were the petitioner’s failure to demonstrate a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer and the inability to establish that the beneficiary had been employed abroad for the requisite period. Specifically, the evidence did not convincingly show that the petitioner and the foreign employer were owned and controlled by the same individuals or entities, which is necessary to qualify as affiliates under immigration regulations.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the petitioner did not sufficiently establish ownership and control as required to demonstrate a qualifying relationship between the U.S. petitioner and the foreign employer. The evidence provided, including share certificates and a memorandum of understanding (MOU), was deemed insufficient to prove that the foreign employer had the necessary control over the petitioner. Additionally, inconsistencies and a lack of probative evidence in the petitioner’s documentation led to the decision to revoke the previously approved petition.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner provided various documents, including share certificates, a memorandum of understanding, and IRS Forms 1120. However, these documents failed to demonstrate clear ownership and control by the foreign employer. The MOU, which was supposed to prove control, was not recognized as legally binding in the U.S., and critical documents like a complete stock ledger and detailed shareholder agreements were missing.
Additional Notes
The petitioner claimed that discrepancies in the documentation were due to errors made by a former accountant. However, this explanation did not satisfy the burden of proof required to resolve the numerous inconsistencies in the case. The AAO emphasized the importance of clear, consistent, and complete documentation in establishing eligibility for the requested immigration benefit.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, and the initial revocation of the petition was upheld due to the petitioner’s failure to establish a qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign employers.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
