Date of Decision: September 1, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Information Technology
Beneficiary Information
Profession: IT Director
Field: Information Technology
Nationality: Mexican
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a company providing information and business tools to the global automotive industry, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary, an IT Director, under the EB-1C immigrant classification for multinational managers or executives. The petitioner claimed that the beneficiary had been employed in a managerial capacity both in the United States and previously at their Mexican affiliate.
Key Issues
The main issue in this case revolved around the petitioner’s failure to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role, both in the U.S. and in Mexico, met the criteria for managerial capacity. Discrepancies in the job descriptions and time allocations provided by the petitioner raised significant doubts about the managerial nature of the beneficiary’s duties.
USCIS Findings
USCIS found that the petitioner provided inconsistent information regarding the beneficiary’s job duties and the amount of time allocated to various responsibilities. The discrepancies between the initial filing and the response to a Request for Evidence (RFE) were not adequately explained. Additionally, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary’s duties involved primarily managing other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, which is a requirement for classification as a multinational manager or executive.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered included organizational charts, job duty descriptions, and the petitioner’s responses to the RFE. However, the inconsistencies and lack of clear managerial duties in the roles both in the U.S. and Mexico undermined the petitioner’s claims.
Additional Notes
The case also highlighted an issue with the beneficiary’s wage payments, as they were paid by a company other than the petitioner. This raised questions about the qualifying relationship between the companies and the nature of the beneficiary’s employment.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the denial of the EB-1C petition due to the petitioner’s failure to demonstrate the beneficiary’s employment in a managerial capacity.
