Date of Decision: February 26, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Wireless Communication
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Staff Engineer
Field: Wireless Communication
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Approved
Case Overview
The petitioner, a company in the wireless communication industry, sought to employ the beneficiary, a staff engineer, under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The petitioner aimed to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role abroad involved managerial responsibilities, qualifying them for the requested immigration benefit. The beneficiary was employed by a foreign affiliate of the petitioner and was proposed to continue in a managerial capacity within the U.S. entity.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was whether the beneficiary’s employment abroad qualified as a position in a managerial capacity. The Director initially denied the petition, citing inconsistencies in the job descriptions provided for the beneficiary’s role in a previously approved second-preference visa petition and the current EB-1C petition. The Director concluded that the petitioner failed to prove that the beneficiary’s position abroad involved managing an essential function rather than performing non-managerial duties.
USCIS Findings
Upon review, the USCIS Director pointed out discrepancies in the job descriptions presented in the current petition compared to a previously approved petition under a different classification. This inconsistency led to the initial denial, as it cast doubt on the managerial nature of the beneficiary’s duties.
Supporting Evidence
In response to the Director’s concerns, the petitioner provided a detailed job description for the beneficiary’s foreign role, emphasizing the managerial nature of the position. The petitioner clarified that the beneficiary was responsible for managing an essential function within the organization, supported by a robust team and organizational structure. This evidence demonstrated that the beneficiary’s duties were primarily managerial and directly related to overseeing critical functions rather than performing routine tasks.
Additional Notes
The petitioner also addressed the perceived inconsistencies between the job descriptions in the current and previous petitions, successfully arguing that there was no material difference in the beneficiary’s responsibilities. The petitioner’s thorough explanation and supporting documentation were sufficient to overcome the Director’s concerns.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was sustained, and the petition was approved, recognizing the beneficiary’s role as a function manager and qualifying them for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
