Date of Decision: April 27, 2017
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Freight Air Transportation Services
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Vice President
Field: Freight Air Transportation Services
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Motion to Reopen/Reconsider Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a freight air transportation service company, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its vice president under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign employer or that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity.
The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed, and then filed a subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion was also denied. The petitioner then filed another motion to reconsider, arguing that the previously submitted evidence was sufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof and citing precedent case law. However, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) denied the motion, finding that the petitioner did not establish proper cause for reconsideration and failed to address the specific reasons for the previous denials.
Key Issues
The primary issues were whether the petitioner could demonstrate a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer and whether the beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. The AAO determined that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish these requirements and did not adequately address the discrepancies and inconsistencies identified in the record.
USCIS Findings
The AAO found that the petitioner’s motion to reconsider did not present new facts or legal arguments that would justify reopening the case. The petitioner also failed to submit contemporaneous evidence to resolve the inconsistencies in the record, which raised doubts about the credibility and probative value of the evidence.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted statements from counsel and the petitioner’s president, as well as references to previously submitted evidence. However, the AAO found these insufficient to meet the requirements for reconsideration or to resolve the inconsistencies in the case.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of submitting contemporaneous and credible evidence to resolve inconsistencies and establish eligibility under the EB-1C classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reconsider was denied. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met the requirements for the EB-1C classification, and the appeal remains dismissed.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
