Date of Decision: May 5, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Database Practice
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Vice President- Database Practice
Field: Database Practice
Nationality: Indian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a software services and internet consulting company, sought to employ the beneficiary as a “Vice President- Database Practice” under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The beneficiary had previously worked for the petitioner abroad and had been employed in the U.S. as a Vice President for Database and Business Intelligence Practice under an L-1A visa. The immigration benefit sought was permanent residency under the EB-1C category, specifically targeting executives and managers with multinational experience.
Key Issues
The primary issue leading to the denial was the petitioner’s failure to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States. The USCIS found insufficient evidence that the beneficiary’s role in the U.S. involved high-level executive duties, as opposed to more operational or technical tasks. The decision focused on whether the beneficiary’s job duties met the criteria for executive capacity as defined under the relevant immigration laws.
USCIS Findings
USCIS determined that the petitioner’s description of the beneficiary’s duties did not convincingly demonstrate that the beneficiary would be primarily engaged in executive functions. Despite the beneficiary’s significant responsibilities and managerial title, the duties described were found to include a substantial amount of non-qualifying tasks such as direct client service provision and technical oversight. The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the beneficiary’s role was primarily focused on setting broad goals and policies or managing a significant component of the organization.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted an organizational chart and detailed descriptions of the beneficiary’s duties. However, USCIS found these documents lacking in specificity and corroborative evidence. The petitioner’s claims regarding the beneficiary’s executive responsibilities were not adequately supported by documentation of actual decision-making authority or examples of strategic leadership.
Additional Notes
USCIS acknowledged that the beneficiary had previously been granted L-1A status, which typically aligns closely with EB-1C criteria. However, the decision emphasized that each petition is assessed on its own merits and that the evidence provided for the EB-1C petition did not meet the necessary standard for executive capacity.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, and the petition was denied based on the failure to establish that the beneficiary would serve in an executive capacity in the United States.
