Date of Decision: June 10, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Textile Industry
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President/CEO
Field: Textile Industry
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The Petitioner is a textile supplier seeking to employ the Beneficiary, its “President/CEO,” under the EB-1C immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. The Beneficiary, who is also the sole owner of the company, was proposed to be transferred to the United States to oversee and expand the company’s operations. The petitioner applied for an immigrant visa for the Beneficiary, aiming to bring him on board to continue managing the company in an executive capacity.
Key Issues
The primary issues revolved around whether the Petitioner had established that the Beneficiary would be employed in a truly executive capacity. The denial was based on several factors, including insufficient evidence of the Beneficiary’s executive role, the adequacy of the staff to support such a role, and whether the Beneficiary would primarily engage in executive-level duties rather than day-to-day operational tasks.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS determined that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be primarily engaged in executive duties. The decision highlighted concerns about the job description’s vagueness, the insufficient detail on the allocation of time to specific tasks, and the low wages paid to the Beneficiary’s purported support staff, which raised questions about the legitimacy of their roles as managers or executives.
Supporting Evidence
The Petitioner submitted various documents, including job descriptions, an organizational chart, and payroll summaries. However, these materials were found lacking in detail and credibility. The payroll records, in particular, showed wages that were inconsistent with full-time employment, casting doubt on the company’s ability to relieve the Beneficiary from non-executive tasks.
Additional Notes
The appeal emphasized that merely holding an executive title does not satisfy the statutory requirements for an executive capacity. The Petitioner must provide concrete evidence that the Beneficiary’s duties are primarily executive in nature, which was not sufficiently done in this case.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the initial denial due to the Petitioner’s failure to establish that the Beneficiary would serve in a qualifying executive capacity.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
