Date of Decision: January 11, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Wholesale Cosmetic Nail Products
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Managing Director
Field: Wholesale Cosmetic Nail Products
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a wholesaler of cosmetic nail products produced by its foreign affiliate, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its managing director under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that: (1) the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity, and (2) the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity.
On appeal, the petitioner argued that the beneficiary’s past and present positions met the criteria for an executive capacity. However, upon de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Director’s findings that the petitioner’s descriptions of the beneficiary’s duties lacked the specificity needed to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role was primarily executive in nature.
Key Issues
The primary issues were whether the petitioner could demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the U.S. and whether the beneficiary had been employed in such a capacity abroad. The AAO determined that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient and detailed descriptions of the beneficiary’s duties to meet these requirements.
USCIS Findings
The AAO found that the petitioner did not provide adequate details regarding the beneficiary’s daily activities, both in the U.S. and abroad, to establish that the beneficiary’s role was primarily executive. The AAO emphasized that merely repeating the statutory language defining executive capacity was insufficient without specific and credible evidence of the beneficiary’s actual duties.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted job descriptions, organizational charts, and other documents, but the evidence was found to be insufficient and lacked the necessary detail to meet the regulatory requirements.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing specific and detailed job descriptions that clearly delineate the executive nature of the beneficiary’s role and the operational tasks delegated to others.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met the requirements for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
