Date of Decision: May 2, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Exportation of Weather Instruments
Beneficiary Information
- Profession: General Manager
- Field: Weather Instruments Exportation
- Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, C-, Inc., an exporter of weather instruments, filed a petition to permanently employ the beneficiary as its General Manager under the EB-1C category for multinational executives or managers. The EB-1C classification is intended to facilitate the permanent transfer of qualified foreign employees to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity.
The petition was initially denied by the Texas Service Center, which concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States and had not been employed in such a capacity abroad. The petitioner appealed this decision, which was subsequently dismissed. A motion to reconsider was then filed, leading to the current review.
Key Issues
The main issue in this case was whether the beneficiary was employed, and would be employed, in a managerial or executive capacity as required under section 101(a)(44) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The petitioner’s failure to clearly demonstrate the managerial or executive nature of the beneficiary’s role both abroad and in the U.S. was the primary ground for the denial.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the evidence provided by the petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the beneficiary’s duties were primarily managerial or executive. Specifically, the job descriptions provided were deemed vague and conflicting. The petitioner’s claim that the beneficiary managed essential functions was not supported by detailed documentation or evidence showing that the beneficiary would not be involved in non-managerial duties.
Additionally, the AAO noted that while the petitioner argued that the beneficiary oversaw independent contractors, there was insufficient documentation to support this claim, apart from a vague reference to an accounting service. The AAO also clarified that merely holding the title of “General Manager” was not enough to prove the managerial nature of the beneficiary’s duties.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered in the decision included job descriptions, organizational charts, and descriptions of the company’s structure and operations. However, the AAO found this evidence inadequate to demonstrate that the beneficiary met the criteria for managerial or executive capacity as defined by the relevant immigration laws and regulations.
Additional Notes
The petitioner’s argument that the AAO did not apply the proper standard of review (preponderance of the evidence) was found unpersuasive. The AAO stated that the petitioner’s disagreement with the decision did not suffice as a basis for reconsideration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider was denied, and the previous decision to dismiss the appeal was upheld. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish the beneficiary’s eligibility for the EB-1C visa classification.
