EB-1C USCIS Appeal Review – Human Resources Manager from India – NOV252020_01B4203

Date of Decision: November 25, 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: Denied

Case Overview

The petitioner, a franchised Indian vegetarian restaurant, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary, an Indian national, as a human resources manager under the EB-1C immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. This classification allows a U.S. employer to transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. The petition was denied by the Texas Service Center on the grounds that the petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship between the U.S. employer and the beneficiary’s prior foreign employer.

Key Issues

The main issue in this case was the failure to establish a qualifying relationship between the U.S. employer and the foreign employer, as required by section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Additionally, the petitioner’s motion to reconsider was dismissed due to untimeliness, as it was filed one day after the regulatory deadline.

USCIS Findings

The USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign employers. The petitioner’s argument that the delay in filing was due to the COVID-19 pandemic was not supported by sufficient evidence. The AAO concluded that the petitioner’s late filing did not meet the regulatory requirements, and the previous decision was correctly based on the applicable laws and policies.

Supporting Evidence

The petitioner submitted various documents, including a brief, additional documentation, and references to Executive Orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, these submissions were not sufficient to prove the timeliness or to establish the qualifying relationship required for the EB-1C classification.

Additional Notes

The petitioner cited an announcement by USCIS extending flexibility for responding to agency requests due to COVID-19. However, the AAO noted that this flexibility only applied to decisions, requests, or notices issued between March 1 and July 1, 2020, and did not apply to this case.

Conclusion

Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were both denied due to the petitioner’s failure to meet the regulatory requirements and to present new evidence that would justify reconsideration.

Download the Full Petition Review Here


Igbo Clifford
Igbo Clifford

python • technical writing • filmmaking

Articles: 1194

One comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *