Date of Decision: July 13, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Furniture Products Management
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Furniture Products Management
Nationality: China
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a company specializing in the sale of furniture products, sought to employ the beneficiary as its President under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The beneficiary had previously been employed in a managerial capacity in China. The petition aimed to secure his role in a similar capacity within the U.S.-based company.
Key Issues
The primary issues leading to the denial were the petitioner’s failure to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity in the United States. Additionally, the petitioner’s documentation was inconsistent regarding the beneficiary’s duties, leading to uncertainty about the true nature of his role. There were also concerns about the beneficiary’s direct involvement in non-qualifying operational tasks.
USCIS Findings
USCIS found that the petitioner failed to clearly demonstrate that the beneficiary’s duties would be primarily managerial or executive. The documentation provided by the petitioner showed the beneficiary’s involvement in operational tasks, such as handling shipping, accounting, and direct interactions with vendors, which do not qualify as managerial or executive under the law. Furthermore, inconsistencies in the duty descriptions submitted at different stages of the process raised doubts about the beneficiary’s actual responsibilities.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including organizational charts, job descriptions, and operational records. However, these documents did not convincingly support the claim that the beneficiary would primarily perform managerial or executive functions. Instead, the evidence suggested that the beneficiary was involved in day-to-day operations, which disqualified him from the EB-1C classification.
Additional Notes
The decision also highlighted the petitioner’s failure to resolve inconsistencies in the record, which further undermined the credibility of the claim. Moreover, issues related to the company’s business operations, such as the ability to pay the beneficiary’s wage and the employer-employee relationship, were noted but not fully addressed, as the primary issue of the beneficiary’s role was sufficient for dismissal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the initial denial due to the petitioner’s inability to demonstrate that the beneficiary would serve in a managerial or executive capacity as required for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
