dismissed EB-1C Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 14837761 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 25, 2021 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a company providing architectural design services, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as a project manager in the United States under the fust preference immigrant 
classification for multinational executives or managers . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States. Further, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary qualifies as a manager in the United States 
based on his supervision of subordinate professionals, and in the alternative, also asserts that he would 
qualify as a function manager. The Petitioner contends that it submitted sufficiently detailed U.S. 
duties for the Beneficiary and states that the Director disregarded evidence indicating his supervision 
of professional subordinates . The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary qualified as a manager 
while employed in a similar position abroad. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal as the 
Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity in the United States. Since the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding whether the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
abroad. 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 of L-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). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or executive 
services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 
The Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and that the prospective U.S. employer 
has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The sole issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would act in 
a managerial capacity in the United States. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary would 
be employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(44)(A). 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial 
capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). 
A. Duties 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, the Petitioner must show that 
the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at 
section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the offered position meets 
all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial 
duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a given 
beneficiary's duties will be primarily managerial, we consider the Petitioner's description of the job 
duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, 
2 
the presence of other employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties, the 
nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual 
duties and role in a business. 
The Petitioner stated that it is an international architectural services firm providing "comprehensive 
services in building design, urban planning, and interior design for new facilities, renovations and 
restorations." The Petitioner indicated the Beneficiary would provide "managerial support and 
coordination" and noted that he would "prepare detailed reports on the results of. .. design projects and 
other design business activities." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary would "review all 
rendering done by his team designers" and exercise "significant authority over the day-to-day design 
project operations and project schedule and staffing." It stated that the Beneficiary would direct his 
team members and oversee and the preparation of detailed reports to be provided to the company's 
headquarters. 
Later in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary "plays a key management role in overseeing professional staff: architectural and interior 
designers, in project teams he is supervising." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary oversees 
four implementation teams, or the office, condo, amenities, and retail teams, noting that "he has the 
authority to recommend and hire additional architectural designers as he deems necessary." It farther 
stated that the Beneficiary formulated and oversaw "project range, and schedule and coordinated 
internal resources and consultants for project execution according to a scheduled timeline" and 
reviewed and managed "design, construction procedures, zoning and materials and building codes 
knowledge in order to provide feedback and revise the works of professional designers." The 
Petitioner also indicated that the Beneficiary was tasked with "contracting and overseeing consultants 
on structural work, MEP and FP, enclosure and waterproofing, vertical transportation, and internal 
considerations like lighting, IT, audio-visual, and security." In addition, it explained that the 
Beneficiary was tasked with monitoring progress per the project schedule, making sure the project 
deliverables meet the project administration phase and client requirements, while also following up 
with clients and reporting on said progress. 
The Petitioner farther provided the following U.S. duty description for the Beneficiary: 
15-25% 
15-30% 
15-30% 
10-20% 
Identify project requirements. Build team around specialties. 
Create a project schedule. Determine methods of progress tracking and 
controlling professional team members/work products. 
Evaluating project per schedule. Evaluating team/team member 
contribution. Identify problem areas for addressing if necessary 
interview candidates for additional staffing. 
Hold client and consultant meetings for budget, design specifications, 
etc. Meet with executive and directors for ongoing projects. Reporting 
progress. 
The Beneficiary's duties and the submitted supporting evidence indicate his likely involvement in 
several non-qualifying operational duties rather than managerial-level tasks. For instance, the 
Beneficiary's duties stated that he has, and would be, regularly responsible for identifying project 
requirements, creating project schedules, identifying problem areas within his projects, and meeting 
3 
with clients and consultants on budgetary and design issues. These operational level duties are further 
reflected in submitted emails showing the Beneficiary revising design drawings, collecting 
specifications from clients and consultants, and communicating requirements to consultants. In 
contrast, little of the supporting documentation substantiates the Beneficiary's delegation of these non­
qualifying tasks to his claimed subordinates. Further, the evidence to does corroborate that the 
Beneficiary is regularly responsible for building teams and for evaluating the performance of his team 
members. In sum, the evidence appears to indicate that the Beneficiary is primarily performing 
ordinary operational duties directly related to the provision of services to clients alongside his 
colleagues rather than delegating these tasks to his asserted subordinates and exercising authority over 
them. 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Here, the Petitioner does not document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would be 
managerial functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying. The Petitioner submits duties and 
evidence reflecting the Beneficiary's substantial involvement in administrative or operational tasks, 
but it does not quantify the time he spends on these duties as compared to qualifying managerial tasks. 
In fact, the Petitioner questionably asserted on the record that the Beneficiary devotes no time to 
operational-level duties; despite documentary evidence indicating otherwise. For this reason, we 
cannot determine whether the Beneficiary would primarily perform the duties of a manager. See IKEA 
US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
In contrast, the Petitioner submitted little supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's 
performance of managerial duties, such as him delegating to professional team members, evaluating 
their performance, interviewing candidates for positions, or making other managerial-level decisions 
with respect to his projects. Although we do not expect the Petitioner to articulate every specific 
managerial task or document his performance of every managerial duty, it is reasonable to expect that 
it would provide sufficient credible detail and documentation to properly substantiate his primary 
performance of qualifying duties. However, the provided evidence indicates that the Beneficiary is 
more likely primarily engaged in non-qualifying operational duties alongside his colleagues rather 
than delegating these tasks to his asserted subordinates Specifics are clearly an important indication 
of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions 
would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds as a managerial title and manages or directs a portion of the 
business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as a multinational manager within 
the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the 
Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making; however, the position description alone is insufficient to establish that 
her actual duties would be primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing, Personnel and Function Manager 
4 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of its overall purpose 
and stage of development. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager based on his 
supervision of professional subordinates. The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for 
both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Personnel 
managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, 
or managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute 
plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely 
by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Id. 
If a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to 
hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(2). 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary would qualify as a personnel 
manager. First, contrary to the Director conclusion, the evidence appears to indicate that the 
Beneficiary's colleagues are required to have bachelor's degrees; as such, we will not address this 
issue. However, the identity and number of the Beneficiary's asserted subordinates as of the date the 
petition was filed is not made clear from the submitted evidence. For instance, the Petitioner provided 
an organizational chart in a support letter reflecting that the Beneficiary supervised three employees, 
two "Arch. Designers" and one interior designer; while elsewhere it provided another organizational 
chart indicating that he supervised four teams; namely, the office, condo, amenities, and retail teams 
adding up to approximately 13 employees. However, only one employee from the former 
organizational chart from the support letter is listed in the other conflicting organizational chart 
reflecting approximately 13 subordinates. 
Therefore, although we acknowledge that the Beneficiary's teams may change over time according 
the projects he works on, it has not, at minimum, submitted evidence and duties for his asserted 
professional subordinates as of the date the petition was filed. The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b )(1 ). The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies 
and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner also did not submit supporting documentation to establish that the Beneficiary has 
personnel authority over professional subordinates as claimed. The Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary had authority to put together teams to complete various projects for the company, 
including the authority to review and evaluate the work of the members of his team. However, there 
is little supporting evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has actual personnel authority over 
professional subordinates, or at minimum, the power to recommend their hiring and firing, as required 
by the regulations. There is also no evidence indicating that the Beneficiary selected the members of 
the project teams or performed any personnel actions with respect to these employees. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(j)(2). As such, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has acted, and would act, 
as a personnel manager. 
5 
In the alternative, the Petitioner further asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager. 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the 
work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" 
within the organization. See section 101(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 of G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary would qualify as a function 
manager. First, the Petitioner has not clearly defined the Beneficiary's function. We acknowledge 
that the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary acts as a project manager, with authority to put together 
teams according to the projects he works on. However, the identity and nature of this team as of the 
date the petition was filed is not made clear, and there is question as to whether a loose responsibility 
to work on projects as assigned by the company's directors and partners qualifies as a clearly defined 
function. Further, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has discretionary authority over 
a function. In fact, the submitted evidence appears to indicate that the Beneficiary has little 
discretionary authority within his teams. For example, the Petitioner explained that the company has 
a very defined system for monitoring projects and noted that it requires "strict adherence" to this 
system. Likewise, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary is required to "report ... progress to 
client and project director weekly" on the projects he coordinates. We acknowledge that the Petitioner 
provided several emails reflecting the Beneficiary working side by side his professional colleagues on 
projects, but this documentation provides little clear indication that he has clear discretionary authority 
over a specifically defined function. 
In addition, as we have discussed, the supporting documentation and the Beneficiary's duties indicate 
his substantial involvement in non-qualifying operational duties alongside his colleagues leaving 
uncertainty as to whether he would primarily act as a function manager. As noted, the Beneficiary's 
duties stated that he has, and would be, regularly responsible for identifying project requirements, 
creating project schedules, identifying problem areas within his projects, and meeting with clients and 
consultants on budgetary and design issues. Further, these operational level duties are further reflected 
in submitted emails indicating the Beneficiary's revision of design drawings, collection of 
specifications from clients and consultants, and communication of requirements to consultants. 
However, as we mentioned, little of the supporting documentation substantiates the Beneficiary's 
delegation of non-qualifying tasks to his claimed subordinates. Further, the evidence does corroborate 
that the Beneficiary is regularly responsible for building teams and for evaluating the performance of 
his team members. Therefore, since the Petitioner did not clearly demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
primary performance of managerial tasks, it has not established that he would qualify as a function 
manager. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in a 
managerial capacity in the United States. 
6 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7