Date of Decision: January 24, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Financial Management and Consulting
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General Manager
Field: Financial Management and Consulting
Nationality: Argentina
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a financial management and consulting company, sought to employ the beneficiary as its General Manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. This classification is reserved for individuals who have been employed in a managerial or executive capacity by a company outside the United States and are being transferred to a related U.S. entity in a similar capacity.
Key Issues
The primary issues leading to the denial included the petitioner’s failure to establish a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer, insufficient evidence that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad, and that the proposed U.S. employment would also be in such a capacity. Additionally, the petitioner did not demonstrate its ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage. The Director also made a separate finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, which further complicated the case.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS Director concluded that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a qualifying relationship between the U.S. company and the foreign employer. The evidence submitted, such as partial translations of business documents and stock certificates, was deemed inadequate. Moreover, the Director determined that the petitioner did not convincingly demonstrate that the beneficiary’s roles, both abroad and in the U.S., met the managerial or executive criteria required for EB-1C classification. The finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation was based on conflicting evidence submitted in past petitions filed by the petitioner.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered in this case included business registration documents, commercial lease agreements, and stock certificates. However, these documents were either incomplete, poorly translated, or contradictory, leading to their dismissal as insufficient proof of the petitioner’s claims. The petitioner’s failure to provide IRS transcripts for employee wage statements further weakened their case regarding the ability to pay the beneficiary’s wage.
Additional Notes
The AAO found that the Director did not provide a sufficient analysis to support the finding of willful misrepresentation. Therefore, the matter was remanded for further review and for the issuance of a new decision. Despite this, the AAO agreed with the Director’s assessment that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility requirements for the requested immigration benefit.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The AAO remanded the case for further proceedings, withdrawing the initial decision but maintaining that the petitioner has not yet demonstrated eligibility for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
