Date of Decision: November 24, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Information Technology Services and Consulting
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Vice President – Technology
Field: Information Technology Services and Consulting
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a prominent information technology services and consulting company, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its Vice President – Technology under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers (EB-1C). This classification allows U.S. employers to transfer qualified foreign employees to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. However, the Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary’s U.S. employment would be in a managerial or executive capacity. Furthermore, the petition failed to establish that the beneficiary had been employed in such a capacity by the foreign entity for the required period before entering the United States.
Key Issues
The main issues leading to the denial of the petition were twofold: first, the failure to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role in the U.S. would involve managerial or executive duties; and second, the lack of evidence showing that the beneficiary had held a managerial or executive position with the foreign entity for at least one year in the three years preceding his entry into the U.S.
USCIS Findings
Upon reviewing the petition, the USCIS found that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required for the requested immigration benefit. The initial denial was based on the insufficient evidence provided regarding the beneficiary’s executive or managerial role both in the foreign entity and the U.S. entity. The appeal was summarily dismissed due to the petitioner’s failure to identify specific errors in law or fact in the initial decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v).
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted a brief and new evidence on a motion to reopen, aiming to address the Director’s original denial. However, this new evidence was deemed inadequate because it did not overcome the deficiencies identified in the original petition, nor did it address the specific reasons for the summary dismissal of the appeal.
Additional Notes
The USCIS emphasized that any motion to reopen or reconsider must be supported by new facts or evidence and must address the specific basis for the prior adverse decision. In this case, the petitioner’s failure to submit the required statements during the appeal process led to the summary dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The USCIS dismissed the combined motion to reopen and reconsider, concluding that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof necessary to establish eligibility for the requested immigration benefit.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
