Date of Decision: August 03, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Management in Hospitality and HVAC Services
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Hospitality Management and HVAC Services
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a company owning and operating a bar and restaurant, filed a petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as its president under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The petitioner also indicated expansion into providing HVAC services. The beneficiary had previously been granted L-1A status, which is similar to the EB-1C classification, for a four-month period before the petition was filed.
Key Issues
The petition was denied on multiple grounds. The primary issue was whether the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States. The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s duties met the statutory requirements of executive capacity, specifically in directing the management, setting goals, and establishing policies, as opposed to being involved in day-to-day operational tasks.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the petitioner did not credibly establish that the beneficiary’s role was primarily executive. The evidence provided, including organizational charts and descriptions of the beneficiary’s duties, was generic and lacked detail. The petitioner’s claims of the beneficiary’s executive duties were undermined by documentation suggesting his involvement in routine operational tasks, such as purchasing supplies for the bar and restaurant. Additionally, the organizational structure presented by the petitioner appeared inconsistent with the claimed executive role of the beneficiary.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered included the petitioner’s organizational charts, descriptions of the beneficiary’s duties, and financial records. The petitioner also submitted an expert opinion, which was found to lack probative value as it merely reiterated the petitioner’s claims without addressing the specific deficiencies identified by the USCIS.
Additional Notes
The AAO highlighted the discrepancies in the petitioner’s evidence, particularly the lack of substantial marketing and financial activities that would support the claimed executive role. The petitioner’s failure to resolve these inconsistencies contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying executive capacity in the United States.
