Date of Decision: May 12, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Metal Fabrication
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Multinational Operations Manager
Field: Metal Fabrication
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a metal fabricator, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its multinational operations manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity, nor that there was a qualifying relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary’s foreign employer.
The petitioner appealed the decision, but the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) upheld the denial, finding conflicting evidence regarding the petitioner’s acquisition of the foreign entity and the nature of the beneficiary’s employment. The AAO noted that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to resolve inconsistencies in the claimed ownership and control of the foreign entity, which is critical to establishing the qualifying relationship.
Key Issues
The primary issues were whether the petitioner could demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the U.S. and whether there was a qualifying relationship between the petitioner and the foreign employer. The AAO determined that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient and consistent evidence to establish these requirements.
USCIS Findings
The AAO found that the petitioner did not adequately document the ownership and control of the foreign company. The petitioner submitted conflicting evidence regarding the acquisition of the foreign entity, including inconsistencies in meeting minutes, tax returns, and affidavits. These discrepancies undermined the petitioner’s claim of a qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted meeting minutes, tax returns, affidavits, and other documents. However, the evidence was found to be inconsistent and insufficient to demonstrate the qualifying relationship and the managerial nature of the beneficiary’s role.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing complete and consistent documentation to establish ownership and control when claiming a qualifying relationship under the EB-1C classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was denied. The appeal was dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish the qualifying relationship and managerial capacity required for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
