Date of Decision: June 6, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Restaurant Management
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Managing Director
Field: Restaurant Management
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Revoked
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, S-, LLC, was engaged in the operation of a restaurant through its subsidiary, dL… LLC, and sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its managing director. The petition was filed under the EB-1C classification, which allows a U.S. employer to transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in a managerial or executive capacity.
Key Issues
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center revoked the approval of the petition on several grounds. These included the failure to establish that the petitioner would employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in such a capacity, and that the petitioner was actively doing business as defined by the regulations.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the petitioner’s restaurant had permanently closed in September 2018, after the appeal had been filed. This closure raised significant doubts about the petitioner’s ability to continue offering permanent employment to the beneficiary under the terms and conditions stated in the immigrant petition. The petitioner was also unresponsive to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) and Request for Evidence (RFE), further contributing to the decision to dismiss the appeal.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered in the decision included the lack of response from the petitioner to the NOID/RFE and the closure of the restaurant, which was integral to the beneficiary’s proposed employment. The AAO noted that without an operational business, the petitioner could not meet the eligibility requirements for the EB-1C classification.
Additional Notes
The AAO highlighted that the petitioner’s failure to respond to the NOID/RFE and the subsequent return of mail as undeliverable were significant factors in the dismissal of the appeal. The closure of the petitioner’s business rendered the appeal moot, as the business was no longer in operation to employ the beneficiary.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, primarily due to the petitioner’s failure to respond to requests for evidence and the closure of the business on which the employment offer was based.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
