Date of Decision: May 26, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Business Consulting
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Business Consulting
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a business consulting company, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its president 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 U.S. in an executive capacity and that the beneficiary was not employed in an executive capacity abroad.
On appeal, the petitioner submitted additional evidence and asserted that the Director mischaracterized the nature of the beneficiary’s job duties and did not consider the reasonable needs of the organization in analyzing the petitioner’s staffing levels. The petitioner maintained that the beneficiary had been and would be employed in an executive capacity.
Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary was employed in a qualifying executive capacity abroad. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to overcome the finding that the beneficiary would not be employed in an executive capacity in the U.S.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the petitioner could demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the U.S. The AAO determined that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary’s duties in the U.S. would be primarily executive in nature, considering the inconsistencies in the petitioner’s staffing levels and organizational structure.
USCIS Findings
The AAO found that the petitioner’s description of the beneficiary’s duties was vague and did not sufficiently establish that the beneficiary would primarily perform executive tasks. The petitioner also failed to resolve discrepancies in the organizational chart and the number of employees claimed, which further weakened the case.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted job descriptions, organizational charts, and additional evidence, but the AAO found these to be insufficient to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing detailed job descriptions, consistent documentation, and clear organizational structures to support claims of executive capacity.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying executive capacity as required for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
