Date of Decision: July 1, 2021
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 Manager
Field: Business Management
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a company seeking to employ the beneficiary as a General Manager, filed a Form I-140 under the EB-1C classification for multinational managers and executives. The beneficiary had worked in a managerial role in the United States for approximately two years prior to the petition’s filing. The company aimed to secure a permanent position for the beneficiary under this immigration benefit.
Key Issues
The primary issue revolved around whether the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that the beneficiary’s role in the United States met the managerial capacity requirements defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act. The petitioner failed to provide adequate details and supporting documentation regarding the beneficiary’s managerial duties, both abroad and in the United States. Additionally, the petitioner did not convincingly establish the qualifications of the beneficiary’s subordinates, nor the company’s organizational structure necessary to support the beneficiary’s managerial role.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the petitioner’s descriptions of the beneficiary’s duties were overly generic and lacked the specificity required to demonstrate managerial capacity. Furthermore, the petitioner did not provide substantial evidence to prove that the beneficiary’s subordinates were professionals as defined by immigration regulations. The AAO also noted the insufficiency in the company’s staffing levels at the time of filing, which cast doubt on the feasibility of the beneficiary’s role as a personnel manager.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted duty descriptions and educational qualifications of the beneficiary’s subordinates, but these were deemed too broad and generic. Additionally, references to Department of Labor (DOL) O*Net Online descriptions were not sufficient to establish that the subordinates held supervisory or professional roles. The petitioner also referenced foreign employees supporting the U.S. operations, but this claim was introduced too late in the process to be considered.
Additional Notes
The petitioner’s motion to reconsider did not address the substantial grounds for dismissal identified in previous decisions, including the lack of specific job duties and credible evidence of the beneficiary’s managerial role. The petitioner’s arguments that the beneficiary qualified as a function manager were also rejected due to the generic nature of the role description.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider was dismissed, upholding the denial of the petition.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
