Date of Decision: NOV. 27, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Retail Trade Operation
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President/CEO
Field: Retail Trade Operation
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, identifying itself as a “retail trade” operation, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its “President/CEO” under the EB-1C immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. This classification permits a U.S. employer to transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. The petition was initially denied by the Texas Service Center due to issues with the qualifying relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary’s former employer abroad and an additional finding of willful misrepresentation against the beneficiary.
Key Issues
The primary issues in this case revolved around the petitioner’s failure to establish a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s former employer abroad. Moreover, the Director of the Texas Service Center entered a separate finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact against the beneficiary, which further complicated the case.
USCIS Findings
The Director concluded that the petitioner did not establish the required qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s former employer abroad. Additionally, there was an inconsistent determination made by the Director, who claimed that the petitioner “did not submit any evidence,” despite acknowledging that the evidence provided was insufficient. This inconsistency contributed to the decision to deny the petitioner’s motion to reconsider.
Supporting Evidence
The case highlighted the importance of providing sufficient and relevant evidence when filing motions to reconsider or reopen. The petitioner’s failure to meet the evidentiary requirements ultimately led to the denial of the motion to reconsider by the Director.
Additional Notes
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director’s denial was based on the merits of a motion to reopen, rather than a motion to reconsider, which was what the petitioner had filed. Due to this procedural error, the decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision on the motion was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the AAO’s opinion.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
