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: Human Resources Management
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Human Resources Manager
Field: Human Resources Management
Nationality: Indian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The Petitioner, a franchised Indian vegetarian restaurant, sought to employ the Beneficiary as a Human Resources Manager in the United States under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The petition was initially denied by the Director of the Texas Service Center, who concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary’s former foreign employer. The Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, which was also denied. The Petitioner then appealed the decision, asserting that the Director incorrectly focused on the franchising relationship rather than on the ownership and control of the entities.
Key Issues
The main issue in this case was the Petitioner’s failure to establish a qualifying relationship between itself and the Beneficiary’s former foreign employer. The Director’s decision was based on the lack of evidence showing common ownership and control between the two entities, which is a requirement for the EB-1C visa classification. The Petitioner’s argument that the Director should have focused on operational control rather than ownership was rejected, as the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to support this claim.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to establish a qualifying relationship. The Petitioner’s evidence, including an IRS Form 1065 and other supporting documents, did not demonstrate that the U.S. and foreign entities were owned or controlled by the same individuals or entities in a manner that meets the definition of a “parent-subsidiary” or “affiliate” relationship. The AAO upheld the Director’s decision, noting that the lack of common ownership was a critical deficiency.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered in this case included the IRS Form 1065, partnership agreements, and shareholder meeting minutes. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently establish the necessary qualifying relationship. The discrepancies in ownership percentages between the U.S. and foreign entities were particularly significant in the USCIS’s determination.
Additional Notes
The USCIS emphasized the importance of providing comprehensive documentation to establish ownership and control in cases involving multinational entities. The Petitioner’s failure to present such evidence led to the dismissal of both the motion to reconsider and the subsequent appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, and the denial of the petition was upheld.
