Date of Decision: DEC. 22, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Warehouse and Distribution Management
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Vice President of Operations
Field: Warehouse and Distribution Management
Nationality: Chinese
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The Petitioner, a warehouse and distribution center in the United States, sought to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a Vice President of Operations under the EB-1C classification for multinational managers or executives. The Beneficiary, a national of China, had been employed abroad in a managerial capacity and was intended to continue providing similar services for the Petitioner. The core of the petition centered on proving a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner’s U.S. entity and the Beneficiary’s former foreign employer.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was whether the Petitioner could establish a qualifying relationship between itself and the Beneficiary’s foreign employer. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center determined that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary’s foreign employer had control over the U.S. Petitioner through its ownership structure. Despite claims of indirect control through a series of subsidiaries, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm that the Beneficiary’s foreign employer exerted de facto control.
USCIS Findings
The USCIS reviewed the evidence, including organizational charts, annual reports, and board resolutions. The Director concluded that the evidence did not support the Petitioner’s claim of a qualifying relationship. The documents failed to demonstrate that the foreign employer held sufficient control or ownership to influence the operations of the U.S. Petitioner. Notably, the USCIS found that the foreign employer’s ownership of only 34.32% in the subsidiary controlling the Petitioner was insufficient to establish the necessary relationship under EB-1C requirements.
Supporting Evidence
Key evidence considered included the Articles of Association, annual reports for 2018 and 2019, and other corporate documents related to the foreign employer’s control over the subsidiary. However, these documents lacked clarity and completeness, especially regarding the voting rights and control exercised by the foreign employer. The absence of complete translations and missing stock ledgers further weakened the Petitioner’s case.
Additional Notes
The decision emphasized the importance of providing clear, complete, and credible evidence when establishing qualifying relationships for EB-1C petitions. The lack of detailed documentation and the failure to demonstrate de facto control were critical factors leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, and the petition remains denied due to the failure to establish a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary’s foreign employer.
