Date of Decision: February 19, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Multinational Executive Leadership
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Multinational Executive Leadership
Nationality: China
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a U.S.-based company, sought to employ the beneficiary, who had been serving as a sales manager and later as Vice General Manager for the petitioner’s parent company in China. The petition was filed under the EB-1C category, which is designated for multinational executives or managers. The petitioner aimed to permanently transfer the beneficiary to the U.S. to work as its President.
Key Issues
The key issues revolved around the beneficiary’s employment capacity both abroad and in the U.S. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, citing a failure to establish that the beneficiary had been employed in an executive capacity abroad. Additionally, the petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the U.S.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS concluded that the petitioner did not adequately establish that the beneficiary’s role met the criteria for executive capacity, both in their previous role abroad and in the proposed U.S. role. The decision was heavily influenced by the definitions provided in the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically under sections 101(a)(44)(A) and 101(a)(44)(B), which outline the qualifications for managerial and executive capacities.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence included letters from the petitioner detailing the beneficiary’s roles and responsibilities, as well as financial documentation. However, the Director pointed out discrepancies in the beneficiary’s reported job titles and duties in visa applications, which further complicated the case. Additionally, the petitioner failed to provide audited financial statements to prove the ability to pay the proffered wage.
Additional Notes
The Director did not address the petitioner’s ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage due to insufficient financial documentation. On remand, the Director was instructed to consider additional evidence regarding the beneficiary’s managerial capacity and the petitioner’s financial standing.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The case was remanded to the Director for further consideration and the entry of a new decision based on the analysis provided.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
