A prominent US subsidiary of a multinational business and IT consulting firm faced a dilemma. It employed highly compensated business and IT consultants most with master's or higher degrees from prominent universities. These consultants worked on important projects worth tens and often hundreds of millions of dollars. They knew they were valuable and they couldn't figure out why they had to wait more than five years to gain US residence. Some were ready to move to Canada, or the UK where they could earn residence quickly because of their qualifications. The US subsidiary couldn't afford to lose them.
The company had used Olender to prepare and file labor certification-based permanent residence cases for years and decided to investigate the possibility of multinational manager and executive cases for managers who were vital to the ongoing success of the company.
Multinational manager and executive cases do not require a labor certification and they exempt the successful beneficiary from the employment-based second and third preference category immigrant visa queues, ones that powerfully affect beneficiaries born in India or China. The delay for Indian and Chinese nationals is about five years for advanced degree professionals and almost eleven years for jobs requiring a bachelor's degree and less than five years of experience.
Sean Olender designed a template for EB-1(c) cases that pressed the company and employee beneficiaries to provide voluminous details about the job, the professional employees who reported to the EB-1(c) beneficiaries and how the beneficiaries managed their direct reports, and their projects. Because EB-1(c) cases are very fact intensive, our ongoing pressure for facts drove the cases to what currently remains a 100% approval rate.
We found that EB-1(c) denials are due mostly to two situations: (1) cases that lack merit and should never have been filed, and (2) meritorious cases that are inadequately prepared. Many EB-1(c) cases simply parrot the definition of manager and executive found in the federal regulations. Others reword those definitions, but nonetheless fail to provide real details.
To prevail in an EB-1(c) case, the employer can't merely say that the manager manages "professional employees." The employer must describe the specific management duties with great detail on a day to day basis. In explaining why the managers' direct reports are professional employees, it's not enough to make a bald assertion. Instead the employer must list all of the employees, very specific job duties for each and the academic achievements and experience of each direct report including how many employees report to that person.
This level of detail is sometimes painful for an employer and employee to produce. Often people who are very good at a job have never had to explain their specific day to day duties to anyone, let alone the very specific job duties of everyone who reports to them, and everyone who reports to their direct reports. But detail is necessary to maximize the likelihood of prevailing. And once USCIS denies a case, it is highly difficult to get them to approve another one later in the same category. The time to spend effort describing the facts with great detail is with the very first case.