Date of Decision: October 25, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Legal Services
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Legal Supervisor
Field: Legal Services
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a consulting services provider, initially sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as a legal supervisor under the EB-1 classification for multinational executives or managers. This classification allows U.S. employers to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to work in an executive or managerial capacity in the United States.
Key Issues
The Texas Service Center Director denied the petition due to multiple issues:
- Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation: The petitioner was found to have misrepresented its date of incorporation and the beneficiary’s employment history.
- Qualifying Relationship: The petitioner failed to demonstrate a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer.
- Managerial or Executive Capacity: There was insufficient evidence that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad or that the proposed U.S. role met these criteria.
- Operational Status: The foreign organization’s operational status was in question.
- Ability to Pay: The petitioner did not prove the ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage from the date the petition was filed.
USCIS Findings
The Director’s decision cited the petitioner’s failure to resolve inconsistencies and submit required evidence, which led to findings of material misrepresentation. Although the petitioner requested withdrawal of the petition, the Director proceeded with the denial based on the grounds mentioned.
Supporting Evidence
Key documentation considered included:
- Organizational Charts and Employment Agreements: These documents were intended to prove the beneficiary’s managerial or executive role but were found lacking.
- Company’s Incorporation Records: Discrepancies in the date of incorporation led to findings of misrepresentation.
Additional Notes
Despite the petitioner’s request to withdraw the petition, the Director did not accept it, leading to the appeal. Upon de novo review, the AAO found the Director’s refusal to accept the withdrawal was an error and remanded the case to be treated as a motion to reopen or reconsider the findings of willful misrepresentation.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The case was remanded for a new decision, specifically to address the findings of willful misrepresentation.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
