Date of Decision: SEP. 21, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Retail Management
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General Manager
Field: Retail Management
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a retail dollar store operator, sought to employ the beneficiary as a General Manager under the EB-1C immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. The petitioner claimed that the beneficiary had served as a Sales & Marketing Director abroad before transitioning to the role of General Manager in the United States.
Key Issues
The primary issues in this case included whether the petitioner established that:
- There was a qualifying relationship between the U.S. entity and the beneficiary’s former foreign employer.
- The beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding the petition.
- The beneficiary would continue in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States.
- The petitioner had the financial ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage.
USCIS Findings
USCIS found that the beneficiary did not meet the requirement of one year of employment in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. The evidence indicated that the beneficiary only worked abroad for approximately seven months before entering the United States. Furthermore, the beneficiary’s duties abroad were not clearly documented as managerial or executive, and the organizational chart provided showed that the beneficiary had no subordinates. USCIS concluded that the petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the beneficiary was employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including foreign payroll records, organizational charts, and a support letter. However, the evidence failed to substantiate the claim that the beneficiary’s role abroad was primarily managerial or executive. Additionally, there were inconsistencies in the job titles and duties described in the supporting documents, which further weakened the petitioner’s case.
Additional Notes
The appeal was dismissed primarily because the petitioner could not demonstrate that the beneficiary met the requirement of one year of qualifying foreign employment. The AAO reserved judgment on other grounds for denial, such as the lack of a qualifying relationship and the ability to pay the proffered wage, as they were not necessary to the final decision.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed due to insufficient evidence that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for the required period.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
