Date of Decision: June 25, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Capital Investment
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Field: Capital Investment
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a capital investment firm, sought to employ the beneficiary as its President and CEO under the EB-1C immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. The firm, described as a boutique financial services provider specializing in wealth management and equity investment, aimed to bring the beneficiary to the U.S. to continue her executive role. The company argued that it had been consistently providing services since its incorporation in 2012, which is a crucial requirement for the EB-1C classification.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was whether the petitioner had been “doing business” for at least one year before filing the petition. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center initially revoked the petition’s approval, citing insufficient evidence that the company had been engaged in regular, systematic, and continuous business activities for the required period.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS found that the petitioner failed to establish that it had been doing business in a manner that met the regulatory definition. Despite submitting various agreements and evidence of financial transactions, the petitioner could not sufficiently demonstrate that these activities occurred regularly and continuously for the entire year before the petition was filed. The lack of detailed financial records and corroborative evidence from 2012 further weakened the petitioner’s case.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted multiple documents, including service agreements, profit and loss statements, and bank statements, to prove it had been doing business. However, most of these documents were dated after the petition’s filing date, and the agreements provided were not accompanied by evidence showing that services were regularly and continuously provided during the required period.
Additional Notes
The petitioner argued that the company’s early-stage development should not disqualify it from meeting the “doing business” requirement. However, the USCIS maintained that without substantial evidence of ongoing business activities, the petition could not be approved. The agency also noted discrepancies in the documentation provided, which further undermined the petitioner’s claims.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, and the revocation of the petition’s approval was affirmed. The petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to establish that it was doing business for one year prior to the filing of the petition.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
