Date of Decision: FEB. 24, 2016
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Multinational Executive Management
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Multinational Executive Management
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, S-A-A-S- Corp., an automobile dealership involved in market research, filed a petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as its president under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The petition was initially denied by the Texas Service Center, and the subsequent appeal, motions to reopen, and motion to reconsider also resulted in denials. The key immigration benefit sought was the EB-1C visa classification for the beneficiary as a multinational executive.
Key Issues
The primary issue leading to the denial of the petition was the failure to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner could not demonstrate that the beneficiary was relieved of performing primarily non-qualifying tasks due to insufficient subordinate staff. The evidence provided did not convincingly establish that the beneficiary’s duties were primarily managerial or executive, as required for the EB-1C classification.
USCIS Findings
USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to show that the beneficiary would primarily perform executive or managerial duties. The petitioner’s documentation indicated that the beneficiary was the only salaried employee at the time of filing, suggesting that the beneficiary was performing non-qualifying tasks. Additionally, the job descriptions provided were vague and lacked the necessary detail to establish the beneficiary’s executive or managerial role.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted affidavits and tax documents to support the motion to reopen. However, the evidence failed to address the previously identified concerns adequately. Specifically, the affidavits did not clarify the time spent on qualifying duties, and the IRS forms submitted did not substantiate the employment of sufficient subordinate staff to relieve the beneficiary of non-qualifying tasks.
Additional Notes
The AAO highlighted that merely reiterating general executive or managerial duties without specific details on how these duties are carried out does not satisfy the requirements for the EB-1C classification. The petitioner’s failure to provide concrete evidence of the beneficiary’s role and responsibilities ultimately led to the denial of the motion to reopen.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was denied, reaffirming the initial decision to deny the petition.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
