dismissed EB-1C Case: Architectural Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 28, 2024 In Re: 31510807 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, an architectural engineering services company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its associate director under the first preference immigrant classification for 
multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently 
transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition in April 2023, concluding that the 
Petitioner had not established that: (1) it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer 
abroad; (2) the foreign entity employed the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity; and (3) the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity in the United States. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal in November 2023, agreeing with 
the Director that the Petitioner had not established that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial 
capacity. Because this issue was sufficient to determine the outcome of the appeal, we reserved 
discussion on the two other grounds for denial. 1 The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support of the motion, the 
Petitioner relies on an adopted appellate decision, court decisions, and regulations. 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
The Petitioner maintains that it seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a function manager, meaning that 
the Beneficiary would primarily derive his managerial capacity from managing an essential function 
within the petitioning organization rather than from supervising and controlling the work of 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a 
petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties 
to be performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that: 
(1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is "essential," i.e., core to 
the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the 
function; ( 4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion 
over the function's day-to-day operations. 
Matter ofG-Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). On motion, the Petitioner states that 
we "disregarded the facts" showing that "the Petitioner met all criteria" required to establish eligibility, 
and that we erred by "appl[ying] the personnel manager criteria to a functional manager position." 
Because the Petitioner stipulates that it does not seek to employ the Beneficiary as a personnel manager, 
we need not discuss that issue in any detail. We will, however, note that when the Petitioner first filed 
the petition, it indicated that the Beneficiary "will be managing a team consisting of thirty-five (35) 
managerial and professional employees," an assertion that tends to point toward a personnel manager 
who supervises and controls the work of supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
The Petitioner has asserted that the Beneficiary would manage an essential function, specifically 
facade engineering, which entails the design and detailing of various walls, windows, and storefronts. 
In our November 2023 dismissal notice, we concluded our function manager discussion by stating: 
"the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary's function is well defined and that 
he has senior level discretionary authority over it." 
The Petitioner asserts on motion that it has "clearly defined" the facade function. Our concern, as 
expressed in the November 2023 appellate decision, is not that the Petitioner did not explain the nature 
of the practice of facade engineering. Rather, the Petitioner had provided only general, insufficiently 
corroborated, and conflicting information about the subordinate staff that would perform the 
operational tasks of that function. We stated, for instance: 
Here, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would "collaborate with the sales 
team to represent the solution offering to the clients" and "act[] as a bridge between the 
technical architecture team and management." However, the organizational chart 
submitted does not list a sales team or technical architecture team, nor is "management" 
clearly defined; rather, the chart indicates that the U.S. entity is composed solely of the 
Beneficiary, the project coordinator, and the business and projects coordinator. 
Additionally, the organizational chart for the India office likewise identifies no such 
departments, and indicates that the project leads oversee engineers. 
In a footnote, we added the observation that "the Petitioner does not employ any administrative or 
bookkeeping staff that would perform the day-to-day operational tasks of the company." 
2 
On motion, the Petitioner cites previously submitted emails from the Beneficiary to two U.S. 
subordinates "as evidence ... that there are employees who perform non-qualifying tasks." We did 
not dispute the presence of the two U.S. subordinates or the Beneficiary's authority over them. But 
the Petitioner asserts, on motion, that this authority is only a small part of the Beneficiary's overall 
role with the petitioning U.S. employer. 
The Petitioner states, on motion: "Given that the Beneficiary will not be performing the tasks or 
providing services within the essential function, it follows that there will be other employees who will 
perform such tasks." The burden, however, is on the Petitioner to establish that "other employees ... 
will perform such tasks" as claimed. The Petitioner, on motion, does not establish that we erred in our 
discussion of the insufficiency of evidence regarding the foreign entity's staffing. 
In our dismissal notice, we stated: 
The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary will be managing its Facade project, and 
claimed that he will manage this function as well as oversee the personnel based both 
in its foreign affiliate office and in the U.S. office. The Petitioner did not, however, 
establish that the Beneficiary's position would be at a senior level either within the 
organization or with respect to the function. It also did not establish that the Beneficiary 
would primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function .... 
Here, the Petitioner did not submit supporting documentation to substantiate that the 
Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managing a function rather than performing it. 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will have direct interaction with clients 
and customers regarding project specifications and adaptations. 
On motion, the Petitioner states that "the U.S. Company's organization chart" shows that the 
Beneficiary "unquestionably manages the entire facade department." As we noted in our prior 
decision, the U.S. company employs only two individuals said to be subordinate to the Beneficiary, 
and the Petitioner argues on motion that the Beneficiary's authority over those two individuals 
constitutes a minority of his responsibilities. We stated, in our dismissal notice: 
The Beneficiary, however, cannot qualify as a personnel manager based on the 
oversight of subordinate managers or professionals abroad, as the provided foreign 
organizational chart is vague and does not reflect the manner in which they will support 
him. If a petitioner claims that it has a reasonable need for foreign staff to perform 
some of the operational tasks associated with its U.S. business, it has the burden of 
documenting those foreign employees and the duties they perform for the U.S. entity. 
The Petitioner does not address this point on motion, focusing largely on the Beneficiary's two U.S. 
subordinates. The Petitioner does cite some previously submitted correspondence and appraisal 
documents to support the assertion that it has "clearly established that the Beneficiary will have 
complete discretion and authority over the day-to-day operations of the Facade and the Facade 
3 
department." But the cited materials do not establish the duties and responsibilities of the individuals 
involved. Most of the materials deal with personnel actions such as leave requests, evaluations, and 
salary increases. As such, these actions relate to personnel management, which the Petitioner 
maintains constitutes only a small part of the Beneficiary's duties. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our November 2023 appellate decision 
was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy, or was incorrect based on the record at the time 
we issued our decision. Therefore, we will dismiss the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4