Date of Decision: June 3, 2019
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Management and Business Administration
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Management and Business Administration
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a company involved in the wholesale and retail trade, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its president under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. This classification allows a U.S. employer to transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in a managerial or executive capacity.
The Director of the Texas Service Center initially denied the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to demonstrate it had been conducting business for at least one year before filing the petition. On appeal, the petitioner provided additional evidence, arguing that the Director did not properly evaluate the submitted documentation and did not apply the preponderance of the evidence standard correctly. Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) withdrew the Director’s decision and remanded the case for further consideration.
Key Issues
The main issue in this case was whether the petitioner had been “doing business” for at least one year before filing the petition, as required by the regulations. The Director found the evidence insufficient to establish this, particularly questioning the authenticity and consistency of the business transactions documented in the submitted invoices. Additionally, there were concerns about whether the beneficiary’s role would qualify as managerial or executive, given the nature of the duties described and the lack of corroborative evidence regarding the company’s staffing levels.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS Director concluded that the petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to prove it was doing business for the required period. The Director pointed out inconsistencies in the invoices and a lack of sufficient sales receipts or other documentation to demonstrate ongoing business activities. Moreover, the Director expressed concerns that the beneficiary’s duties, as described, may involve more operational tasks rather than managerial or executive responsibilities.
Supporting Evidence
On appeal, the petitioner submitted additional invoices and documentation, but the AAO found some of these documents potentially lacked credibility due to irregular sequencing. The AAO suggested that further corroborating evidence, such as certified tax returns, bank statements, and payment receipts, would be necessary to verify the petitioner’s claims of doing business. The petitioner was also advised to provide more detailed evidence regarding the beneficiary’s managerial role and the company’s staffing structure.
Additional Notes
The AAO recognized that the RFE (Request for Evidence) provided by the Director might have been unclear about what specific evidence was required, leading to some confusion in the petitioner’s response. As a result, the AAO remanded the case with instructions to issue a new RFE that clearly outlines the necessary evidence to establish eligibility.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The case was remanded for further review. The petitioner is required to provide additional evidence to demonstrate that the company has been doing business for the requisite period and that the beneficiary’s role meets the criteria for an executive or managerial position under the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
