Date of Decision: OCT. 1, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Business Management
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Business Management
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner in this case sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its President under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The beneficiary, who is also the sole shareholder of the petitioner, was intended to be transferred to the United States to continue his role in an executive capacity. The initial decision by the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, primarily due to concerns about whether the beneficiary, as the sole shareholder, would be genuinely employed in an executive capacity.
Key Issues
The key issue leading to the denial was the Director’s determination that the beneficiary would not be employed in the United States in an executive capacity because he would not be under the petitioner’s control due to his status as the sole shareholder. This raised concerns about whether his role would meet the regulatory requirements for an EB-1C classification.
USCIS Findings
Upon appeal, the petitioner argued that the regulations do not preclude an owner from being eligible for the EB-1C classification. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) agreed with this argument and withdrew the Director’s decision on this point. However, the AAO noted that the Director did not fully analyze other relevant issues, such as the beneficiary’s proposed duties and the petitioner’s staffing levels, which are crucial to determining if the beneficiary qualifies as a multinational manager or executive. As a result, the case was remanded for further consideration.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner’s supporting evidence included employment records, tax returns, and financial statements. However, the AAO noted that the record lacked recent financial documents necessary to establish the petitioner’s ability to pay the proffered wage, which was also a point of concern in the Director’s initial decision.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of submitting all required financial documentation to establish the petitioner’s ongoing ability to pay the proffered wage. On remand, the petitioner will need to provide updated financial records to support their case.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The decision of the Director was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further analysis and a new decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
