Date of Decision: September 29, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Communications and Operations
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President/Director
Field: Communications, Vending, and Operations
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner is a company engaged in multiple services, including communications, vending, and the operation of spas, salons, and boutiques. The beneficiary, who was intended to be employed as the President/Director, sought classification under the EB-1C immigrant visa for multinational executives or managers. The petition was originally denied due to multiple grounds, including issues related to the petitioner’s business operations and the beneficiary’s employment status.
Key Issues
The main issues identified were the petitioner’s failure to establish that it was doing business in the United States as required, that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the U.S., and that the beneficiary was employed abroad in such a capacity. Additionally, the petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer or demonstrate the ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage. Furthermore, the USCIS found that both the petitioner and the beneficiary had willfully misrepresented material facts.
USCIS Findings
USCIS found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it was doing business as required. The beneficiary’s role and employment status with the foreign employer were also called into question, as conflicting statements and documents suggested discrepancies in her claimed managerial role. The USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) upheld the decision based on the lack of credible evidence and unresolved inconsistencies in the beneficiary’s employment history.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered included employment agreements, organizational charts, and affidavits. However, the evidence provided by the petitioner did not satisfactorily resolve the discrepancies noted by the USCIS. In particular, the beneficiary’s affidavits and additional documentation failed to convincingly support her employment claims abroad, which was critical to the case.
Additional Notes
The USCIS emphasized that the petitioner must resolve any material inconsistencies with objective, independent evidence. The failure to do so in this case significantly weakened the petitioner’s position and contributed to the dismissal of the motion to reopen and reconsider.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed, upholding the original denial of the petition.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
