Date of Decision: May 25, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Retail and Wholesale of Clothing, Shoes, and Accessories
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Retail and Wholesale of Clothing, Shoes, and Accessories
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a retailer and wholesaler of clothing, shoes, and accessories, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its president under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish the following: (1) the petitioner had a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer; (2) the petitioner would employ the beneficiary in the U.S. in a managerial or executive capacity; (3) the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; and (4) the petitioner had been doing business in the United States for at least one year prior to filing the petition.
On appeal, the petitioner argued that the Director erred on all four points and did not thoroughly review the submitted evidence. However, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the petitioner did not overcome the grounds for denial and dismissed the appeal.
Key Issues
The primary issues were whether the petitioner could demonstrate a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer, that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the U.S., that the beneficiary had been employed in such a capacity abroad, and that the petitioner met the “doing business” requirement. The AAO determined that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient and consistent evidence to establish these requirements.
USCIS Findings
The AAO found that the petitioner did not adequately establish a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer. The evidence presented, including discrepancies in the organizational chart and payroll records, did not support the claim that the beneficiary would primarily perform managerial or executive duties. The AAO also noted that the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that it had been doing business for the required one-year period prior to filing the petition.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted job descriptions, organizational charts, payroll records, and financial documents. However, the evidence was found to be inconsistent and insufficient to meet the regulatory requirements for the EB-1C classification.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of clear and consistent documentation to establish the qualifying relationship, the managerial or executive nature of the beneficiary’s role, and the petitioner’s ongoing business activities.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met the requirements for the EB-1C classification, including the qualifying relationship, managerial capacity, and “doing business” activity.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
