Date of Decision: FEB. 4, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Automotive Parts and Services
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Automotive Parts and Services
Nationality: [Not specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Summarily Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, J-E-, Inc., is an automobile parts and services company that sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its President under the EB-1C multinational manager or executive classification. The petition was initially denied by the Texas Service Center on the grounds that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner appealed the decision, but the appeal was summarily dismissed by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO).
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was the failure to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role as President met the criteria for a managerial or executive position as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
USCIS Findings
The USCIS determined that the petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to establish that the beneficiary’s role would involve managing the organization, department, or subdivision of the organization in a way that aligns with the requirements for a multinational manager or executive. The lack of specificity in the petition, along with the absence of additional evidence or a brief to support the appeal, led to the summary dismissal of the case.
Supporting Evidence
The record indicates that the petitioner intended to submit additional evidence or a brief to support the appeal but failed to do so. As a result, the case was considered based on the evidence already submitted, which was insufficient to meet the burden of proof.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of specifically identifying erroneous conclusions of law or statements of fact when filing an appeal. The petitioner’s failure to comply with these requirements and the lack of additional submissions significantly weakened their case.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was summarily dismissed due to insufficient evidence and failure to address the specific grounds for the denial.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
