Date of Decision: May 17, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Kitchen and Bath Remodeling
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Manager
Field: Kitchen and Bath Remodeling
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a company specializing in kitchen and bath remodeling and closet installation, sought to employ the beneficiary as a manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. This classification allows U.S. employers to permanently transfer qualified foreign employees to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. However, the USCIS denied the petition due to insufficient evidence that the beneficiary was employed abroad and would continue to be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was the petitioner’s failure to establish that the beneficiary was employed in a qualifying managerial capacity, both abroad and in the United States. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role met the regulatory requirements for a managerial position as defined under the EB-1C classification.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS and Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the petitioner did not satisfy the burden of proof required for the EB-1C classification. The petitioner’s repeated motions to reopen the case were denied because they failed to introduce new facts or evidence that would overcome the initial grounds for ineligibility. Additionally, the petitioner’s arguments primarily reiterated previously presented facts without providing substantive new information.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence submitted included an organizational chart, an employment verification letter, and various briefs. However, these documents were deemed insufficient to establish that the beneficiary’s role qualified as a managerial position under the EB-1C classification. The petitioner’s latest motion failed to introduce new facts or evidence, relying instead on previously submitted information.
Additional Notes
The petitioner filed multiple motions in an attempt to overturn the denial, but each motion was rejected due to a lack of new, substantive evidence. The AAO emphasized that simply resubmitting previous documentation and arguments does not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was denied, and the original denial of the EB-1C petition was upheld. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s position met the necessary criteria for a managerial role as required under the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
