Date of Decision: August 12, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Financial and Banking Software Systems
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Principal Technical Consultant
Field: Financial and Banking Software Systems
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a prominent provider of financial and banking software systems, sought to employ the beneficiary as a Principal Technical Consultant under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The classification is intended for U.S. employers to transfer a qualified foreign employee to work in an executive or managerial capacity in the United States. However, the Texas Service Center initially denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity.
Key Issues
The key issue in this case was whether the petitioner had sufficiently established that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity in the United States. The initial denial was based on the Director’s finding that the beneficiary’s role seemed to blend managerial duties with functional tasks, without a clear emphasis on managerial capacity.
USCIS Findings
Upon appeal, the petitioner argued that the Director had disregarded important evidence and failed to provide a thorough explanation for the denial. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) conducted a de novo review and found that the petitioner had indeed presented enough evidence to support the claim that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity, particularly by leading the company’s Lending Technology professional services practice. The AAO withdrew the Director’s decision but noted that further examination was required to determine if the beneficiary had been employed in a managerial capacity abroad before his transfer to the United States.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered included the beneficiary’s role in overseeing a business segment with significant revenue, his involvement in high-level strategy development, and his discretion over day-to-day operations. However, the AAO noted that the petitioner’s evidence regarding the beneficiary’s managerial role abroad was insufficient, particularly concerning his duties as a Senior Software Engineer and Expert Software Engineer.
Additional Notes
The case was remanded to the Director for further review, particularly regarding the beneficiary’s prior employment abroad. The AAO suggested that the petitioner provide additional evidence to clarify the beneficiary’s managerial responsibilities during his previous roles.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further consideration.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
