Date of Decision: JAN. 21, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Operations Management
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Operations Manager
Field: Operations Management
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a U.S. company, filed a Form I-140 petition to permanently employ the beneficiary as an operations manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The beneficiary, who had been employed by the petitioner’s foreign affiliate, sought to continue working in the U.S. in a managerial capacity. The petitioner needed to demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial role and that the company had the financial ability to pay the proffered wage.
Key Issues
The key issues in this case were whether the petitioner could establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity and whether the petitioner had the ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage. The initial denial was based on the conclusion that the petitioner did not sufficiently prove these requirements.
USCIS Findings
Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner did indeed have the ability to pay the proffered wage at the time of filing. However, the Director’s analysis of the managerial capacity issue was found to be lacking in detail and clarity, particularly regarding whether the beneficiary’s duties primarily involved managerial responsibilities. The AAO noted that the petitioner failed to clearly establish that the beneficiary’s subordinates were professional employees requiring a bachelor’s degree or that the beneficiary’s role was sufficiently distinct from those subordinates.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence included the beneficiary’s Internal Revenue Service Form W-2 for 2019, demonstrating that the petitioner paid the proffered wage, and organizational charts outlining the beneficiary’s position within the company. However, inconsistencies and ambiguities in the job descriptions and organizational structure led to questions about the beneficiary’s actual role and supervisory responsibilities.
Additional Notes
The Director’s decision was found to contain inaccuracies and insufficient analysis, which prevented the petitioner from adequately challenging the adverse findings. As a result, the case was remanded for a new decision, allowing the petitioner to provide additional evidence and clarification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The initial denial was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review.
