Date of Decision: January 5, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Import and Export of Agricultural and Construction Machinery
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General Manager
Field: Import and Export of Agricultural and Construction Machinery
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a limited liability company based in Florida, sought to employ the beneficiary as a general manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The petitioner operates as an importer and exporter of agricultural and construction machinery and provides related consulting services. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity.
The petitioner appealed the decision, arguing that the evidence submitted was sufficient to demonstrate the beneficiary’s managerial role. However, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Director’s finding that the petitioner failed to provide detailed and specific evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s duties would primarily involve managerial tasks. The AAO also noted deficiencies in the petitioner’s organizational structure and the lack of sufficient staffing to support the beneficiary’s claimed managerial role.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the petitioner could demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the U.S. The AAO determined that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient and detailed descriptions of the beneficiary’s duties and did not demonstrate that the organization was adequately staffed to relieve the beneficiary from non-qualifying duties.
USCIS Findings
The AAO found that the petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to establish that the beneficiary’s role was primarily managerial or executive. The AAO highlighted the vague job descriptions and insufficient organizational structure as key factors in its decision. The evidence suggested that the beneficiary would engage in non-qualifying duties due to the lack of sufficient subordinate staff to perform these tasks.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted a job description with a percentage breakdown of time spent on each task, an organizational chart, and affidavits. However, these were found to be insufficient to establish the necessary qualifying managerial role.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that to qualify under the EB-1C category, the petitioner must provide specific, detailed, and credible evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role will primarily involve managerial or executive duties and that the organization is adequately staffed to support such a role.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met the requirements for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
