Date of Decision: October 1, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: IT Services
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Senior Manager (Delivery)
Field: IT Services, with a specialization in banking solutions
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a company specializing in IT services and solutions, particularly within the banking sector, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as a Senior Manager (Delivery) under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The petition was originally denied by the Nebraska Service Center on the grounds that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary had been employed in a managerial capacity at its Indian branch for the requisite period before filing the petition. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was subsequently dismissed. The case was then brought before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on a motion to reopen, which also resulted in a dismissal.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was whether the beneficiary had been employed in a managerial capacity at the petitioner’s branch in India for at least one year before the filing of the petition, as required under section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the petitioner, particularly regarding the nature of the beneficiary’s job duties, led to doubts about the beneficiary’s managerial role.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS and the AAO found that the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity during his tenure in India. The initial evidence submitted focused heavily on operational duties rather than managerial responsibilities. Even with additional documentation provided in response to a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), the petitioner could not overcome the inconsistencies in the job descriptions, which cast doubt on the beneficiary’s actual role within the organization. The petitioner’s motion to reopen failed to present new evidence that could substantiate the claim of managerial capacity.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence included organizational charts, job descriptions, and letters from employees who allegedly reported directly to the beneficiary. However, these documents were either inconsistent or insufficient to prove that the beneficiary’s primary duties were managerial. The AAO noted that the newly submitted evidence did not significantly differ from what had already been considered and found lacking during the initial appeal.
Additional Notes
The petitioner argued that the proper standard of proof had not been applied in the previous decisions. However, the AAO indicated that this legal issue should have been raised in a motion to reconsider rather than a motion to reopen. No new facts or substantial evidence were provided to support a different conclusion under the standard of proof.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was dismissed, upholding the original denial of the petition.
