Date of Decision: January 11, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Manufacturing – Aluminum Foil Production
Petitioner Information
Profession: President and General Manager
Field: Manufacturing Management
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner, C-E-USA, Inc., a manufacturer of aluminum foil, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its president and general manager under the EB-1 classification for multinational managers or executives. The petition was initially denied by the Texas Service Center on the grounds that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States.
Key Issues
The main issues in this case were whether the beneficiary’s proposed role in the U.S. met the criteria for executive capacity and whether the petitioner had been doing business for at least one year before filing the petition. The Director’s decision pointed out that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s duties would be primarily executive in nature and questioned the sufficiency of the petitioner’s staffing to relieve the beneficiary from performing non-executive tasks.
USCIS Findings
Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director did not provide an adequate analysis of the evidence, specifically regarding the beneficiary’s employment in an executive capacity and the petitioner’s operational business status. The AAO criticized the Director’s decision for not fully explaining why the petitioner’s evidence was insufficient. The AAO highlighted that a proper analysis was required to allow meaningful appellate review and ensure the petitioner had a fair opportunity to contest the decision.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted various documents, including organizational charts and IRS Form W-2s for employees, to support its claim. However, the AAO noted that the evidence provided was not sufficiently detailed to establish the executive nature of the beneficiary’s role or to prove that the petitioner had been continuously doing business for the required period.
Additional Notes
The AAO also pointed out that while the petitioner claimed reliance on subcontractors and foreign employees to support operations, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate this claim. Furthermore, the petitioner had not demonstrated that it was adequately staffed to ensure that the beneficiary would be relieved from performing non-executive tasks.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The Director’s decision was withdrawn, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The Director was instructed to conduct a more thorough analysis of the evidence and to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to address any deficiencies in the record before a new decision is made.
