Date of Decision: November 24, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Food Import and Distribution
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Food Import and Distribution
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a food import and distribution company, filed a petition seeking to permanently employ the beneficiary as its President in the United States under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The petitioner aimed to utilize the beneficiary’s extensive experience to lead their U.S. operations.
Key Issues
The primary issues leading to the denial of the petition were threefold: (1) failure to establish a qualifying relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary’s former foreign employer, (2) insufficient evidence that the petitioner was doing business according to the regulations, and (3) lack of demonstration that the beneficiary would serve in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. Additionally, the USCIS found that both the petitioner and the beneficiary willfully misrepresented material facts concerning the beneficiary’s foreign employment.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS, and subsequently the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), upheld the denial of the petition, affirming the initial findings. The AAO noted that despite withdrawing the conclusion that the petitioner was not conducting business, the other grounds for denial remained valid. The AAO also concurred with the determination that both the petitioner and the beneficiary engaged in willful misrepresentation, which significantly impacted the case’s outcome.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including evidence of the company’s business operations, the beneficiary’s employment agreements, and organizational charts. However, these documents were deemed insufficient or irrelevant in overcoming the issues raised by the USCIS, particularly concerning the qualifying relationship and the beneficiary’s managerial role.
Additional Notes
In the final motion to reopen and reconsider, the petitioner referenced previously submitted evidence without providing new facts or additional documentation. The AAO dismissed the motions, finding no grounds for reopening or reconsideration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were both dismissed, resulting in the denial of the EB-1C petition.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
