Date of Decision: June 25, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Software Engineering
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Senior Software Engineer
Field: Software Engineering
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, a prominent software, services, and internet technology company, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as a Senior Software Engineer under the EB-1C classification, designated for multinational executives or managers. The beneficiary, having been employed by the company abroad in a managerial capacity, was to continue his role in the United States. The role involved managing a critical team within the Strategic Enterprise Services IT, Enterprise Platform, and Corporate Service Department.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case revolved around whether the beneficiary’s role qualified as a managerial position under the EB-1C classification. The Nebraska Service Center Director denied the petition, citing inconsistencies between the job descriptions provided in two separate petitions. The petitioner argued that the Director overlooked substantial supporting evidence and failed to apply the correct standard for evaluating managerial capacity.
USCIS Findings
The Director initially denied the petition due to perceived inconsistencies between the beneficiary’s job description in the EB-1C petition and a previous third preference petition. The Director referenced Matter of Ho, suggesting these inconsistencies cast doubt on the petition’s validity. However, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director’s decision lacked sufficient analysis and did not fully consider the evidence provided. The AAO determined that the inconsistencies cited were not substantial enough to justify the denial and that the petitioner’s argument was persuasive.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered included the detailed job descriptions, organizational charts, and the petitioner’s claims that the beneficiary would manage an essential function within the organization. However, the AAO noted that additional evidence was required to fully establish the beneficiary’s managerial capacity, such as more precise descriptions of the beneficiary’s day-to-day tasks and the identification of the team he would manage.
Additional Notes
The AAO remanded the case to the Director, instructing a new request for evidence to address the deficiencies highlighted. The AAO emphasized the need for a detailed explanation of the beneficiary’s role within the organization and how it aligns with the definition of a managerial position.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further review and a new decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
