Date of Decision: August 30, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Global Operations
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Vice President – Global Operations
Field: Global Operations Management
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, T-, LLC, a company specializing in the global outsourcing of back-office technology solutions, filed a petition seeking to permanently employ the beneficiary as Vice President – Global Operations under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The petition aimed to facilitate the beneficiary’s transfer to the U.S. to manage a crucial financial services platform and associated services for the company’s major U.S. client.
Key Issues
The primary issue in the initial decision was whether the petitioner had sufficiently demonstrated that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. The director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, focusing on the petitioning entity’s size and failing to acknowledge the beneficiary’s detailed job description and the evidence showing that he oversaw a substantial team of professionals in India.
USCIS Findings
Upon de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the petitioner provided credible documentation to establish that the beneficiary would indeed function in a managerial capacity. The AAO noted that the beneficiary was responsible for managing the delivery of a financial services platform, a key function within the organization, and that he exercised substantial discretionary decision-making authority over day-to-day operations.
However, the AAO found that the record did not include all the necessary evidence to meet the eligibility requirements fully. Specifically, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of the company’s ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage from the priority date until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including a detailed job description, organizational charts, and evidence of a team of approximately 20 engineers based in India, demonstrating that the beneficiary’s duties would primarily involve managerial tasks. However, critical evidence, such as the petitioner’s recent financial statements or tax returns, was missing, which is necessary to establish the ability to pay the proffered wage.
Additional Notes
The AAO also raised concerns about whether the petitioner was actively “doing business” as defined by the regulations. The record lacked recent evidence of ongoing business activities beyond the Development Services Agreement with the U.S.-based client. The AAO instructed the petitioner to provide additional documentation to support its claims of regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and services.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The case has been remanded for further consideration, with specific instructions for the petitioner to provide additional evidence related to the company’s ability to pay the proffered wage and ongoing business activities.
