Date of Decision: August 4, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Technical Business Development
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Technical Business Developer
Field: Technical Business Development
Nationality: Indian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, an electronic commerce company, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary, an Indian national, as a “Technical Business Developer” under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. This classification is intended to allow U.S. employers to transfer qualified foreign employees to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity.
Key Issues
The primary issues in this case revolved around whether the petitioner had adequately demonstrated that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity and that she would be employed in the U.S. in a similar capacity. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, citing insufficient evidence that the beneficiary managed either personnel or a particular function within the organization.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS found that the petitioner’s evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity as defined by immigration law. The Director noted deficiencies in the petitioner’s documentation, particularly the lack of clear organizational charts and insufficient explanation of the beneficiary’s role within the company’s hierarchy.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence included a 24-page letter from the petitioner’s human resources department, which detailed the beneficiary’s job duties both in her current U.S. position and her previous role in India. Additionally, the petitioner provided letters from the beneficiary’s current and former managers. However, the USCIS found that this evidence was not adequately analyzed or referenced in the Director’s decision.
Additional Notes
The AAO noted that the Director failed to provide a full analysis of the evidence submitted, which included detailed job descriptions and organizational charts. The case was remanded for further review with instructions to request additional evidence, including expanded organizational charts, to clarify the beneficiary’s managerial role within the company.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The case was remanded for further review and a new decision.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
