Date of Decision: June 9, 2016
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Vice President – Seafood Wholesaler and Real Estate Management
Beneficiary Information
- Profession: Vice President
- Field: Seafood Wholesaler and Real Estate Management
- Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, G-(USA) Inc., is a seafood wholesaler that also owns and manages commercial real estate and ranch land. The petition was filed to classify the beneficiary, a vice president of the company, under the EB-1C category for multinational executives or managers. The company sought to permanently employ the beneficiary in an executive role in the United States.
Key Issues
The key issue in the denial was whether the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within the United States. The Director concluded that the petitioner did not establish the necessary organizational complexity or sufficient support staff to relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties. Additionally, the Director questioned the qualifying nature of the beneficiary’s supervision over contractors.
USCIS Findings
USCIS found that while the petitioner’s staff size was relatively small, the beneficiary’s role primarily involved managing operations through foreign affiliates and contractors, which could qualify as managerial duties under the EB-1C classification. However, concerns were raised about the vague and general nature of the beneficiary’s job description and whether the duties described were sufficient to establish eligibility for the classification. The petitioner’s reliance on prospective business plans and job descriptions that appeared to be template-based further complicated the case, as they did not accurately reflect the current state of operations or the beneficiary’s day-to-day responsibilities.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including job descriptions, a business plan, tax and payroll records, and evidence of real estate holdings. These materials aimed to demonstrate the beneficiary’s executive role and the company’s operational structure. However, the job descriptions were found to be too broad and generic, lacking specificity regarding the beneficiary’s actual duties within the organization.
Additional Notes
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) identified deficiencies in the evidence and the Director’s decision, particularly regarding the job descriptions and the company’s early stage of development. The AAO remanded the case to the Director for further proceedings, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to provide additional evidence to support the beneficiary’s eligibility.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The case has been remanded for a new decision by the Director, Nebraska Service Center, allowing the petitioner to address the identified issues and provide additional supporting evidence.
