Date of Decision: AUG. 02, 2021
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, an 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). The petition aimed to establish the Beneficiary’s eligibility for the requested immigration benefit based on his executive role within the company.
Key Issues
The primary issues identified in the decision were the failure to establish that the Beneficiary’s U.S. employment would be in a managerial or executive capacity and that he had been employed by the foreign employer in a managerial or executive position for at least one year within the three years preceding the filing of the petition or his entry into the United States as a qualifying nonimmigrant.
USCIS Findings
USCIS found substantial discrepancies in the documentation provided regarding the Beneficiary’s foreign employment, which led to uncertainty about the actual period of his employment abroad. Specifically, the Petitioner did not satisfactorily demonstrate that the Beneficiary met the requirement of having been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity. Furthermore, the time the Beneficiary spent in the United States during the claimed period of foreign employment could not be counted towards the required one year of foreign employment.
Supporting Evidence
The Petitioner submitted various documents, including affidavits and foreign pay stubs, to support the Beneficiary’s foreign employment. However, inconsistencies in the provided dates and details undermined the credibility of this evidence. The record indicated that the Beneficiary’s time in the United States during the claimed period of foreign employment reduced the total time spent abroad to less than the required one year.
Additional Notes
USCIS emphasized that the Petitioner must resolve any material inconsistencies in the evidence provided. The failure to do so resulted in the denial of the motion to reopen and reconsider the previous summary dismissal of the appeal.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were both dismissed, and the petition remained denied.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
