dismissed EB-1C Case: Autism Rehabilitation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 5, 2025 In Re: 35709468 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, an autism rehabilitation center, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
deputy general manager 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 )(1 )(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner and its foreign parent company are doing business; that the Beneficiary 
has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; and that the Petitioner will employ 
the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The Director based these 
conclusions largely on technical deficiencies in the submitted documentation. The matter is now 
before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 )(1 )(C) of the Act. 
The Form 1-140, 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. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner describes itself as "an international research and service institution for the therapeutic 
services of autism." The petitioning U.S. employer is a subsidiary of _______ a Chinese 
company described as "a global provider of cutting-edge machine vision solutions and multimedia 
interactive technology." The Beneficiary worked for I I as a deputy general manager from 
October 2020 to July 2022. Before and after that period, the Beneficiary studied in the United States 
as an F-1 nonimmigrant student. At the time the Petitioner filed the petition, the Beneficiary was 
studying for a master's degree in visual communication in California. 
A. Documentary Requirements 
When a petitioner submits a document containing a foreign language, the petitioner must also submit 
a full English language translation. The translator must certify that the translation is complete and 
accurate, and that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(3 ). Evidence relating to qualifying experience must be in the form of letters from current 
or former employers, and must include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific 
description of the duties that the beneficiary performed. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l). 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), stating that the documents in the Petitioner's initial 
submission did not meet all the above requirements. The Director stated that the employers' letters in 
the record do not include the writers' addresses. Therefore, the Director determined that the letters 
could not suffice to establish the Beneficiary's required employment abroad. Regarding the 
translations, the Petitioner submitted a declaration from the translator, dated August 2023, stating the 
translations are "true and correct," and that the translation company is "deemed to be qualified to 
handle the translation service from Chinese to English." The Director observed that the translator did 
not attest to their personal competence and did not certify that the translations were complete. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that it was submitting a "Declaration of Translation ... , 
confirming that the translated documents ... are complete and accurate." 
The new certification, dated July 2024, lists the translated documents and includes a declaration "that 
I am fluent (conversant) in the English and Chinese languages, and that the above 1 is an accurate 
English translation of the Chinese language documents." The new declaration does not certify that 
the translations are complete as required by the regulation. Also, the person who signed the new 
declaration is not the same person who signed the earlier certification, and therefore it is not evident 
that this new declaration could cover the translated documents submitted earlier. 
The response to the RFE also included new letters from and the Petitioner, which, like the 
earlier letters, do not include the required addresses. 
In the denial notice, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not remedied the deficiencies in 
the submitted documents. When the Petitioner first filed the appeal, the Petitioner stated: "we will 
1 There is no English translation above this passage. 
2 
provide newly certified translations that fully comply with the requirements" and "updated letters that 
meet the contact information requirements." 
The Petitioner later submitted a supplement to the appeal that did not include these materials. The 
Petitioner's appellate brief describes "Exhibit l" as "Newly certified translations of all foreign­
language documents submitted, now compliant with 8 CFR § 103.2(b)(3)." Exhibit 1, however, 
consists solely of a copy of the July 2024 certification, which was not compliant with the regulation. 
The Petitioner re-submitted copies of earlier employers' letters. The Petitioner acknowledges the 
"procedural oversight" regarding contact information, but asserts that "other supporting 
documentation already submitted contains complete contact information for the petitioning 
organization," including leases and licenses showing the Petitioner's address. 
We note that the record includes several different addresses for the petitioning U.S. employer. For 
instance, the address shown on each of its submitted income tax returns does not match the address on 
the lease agreement. A printout from the Petitioner's website shows a third address. 
Also, the pertinent regulation requires the address of the person attesting to the beneficiary's 
employment experience, rather than the company's address. The letters from I I and the 
Petitioner have all been signed by the same individual - identified as the Petitioner's owner and 
I I executive general manager - even though the two companies are in China and Nevada. 
State-filed documents in the record also identify the same official as a director of a I I 
subsidiary inl ITexas, which owns a controlling interest in the petitioning entity in Nevada. 
Therefore, the record does not establish the address of the individual who signed those letters. 
The record supports the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not remedy deficiencies in its 
documentation when given the opportunity to do so. 
We also must acknowledge, however, that the Director applied the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) 
to letters describing the Beneficiary's prospective employment with the Petitioner. The petitioning 
U.S. entity has not yet employed the Beneficiary, and therefore its letters do not describe employment 
experience, which is the focus of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). 
That being said, there are material deficiencies in the Petitioner's letters which the Director raised in 
the RFE, and reiterated in the denial notice. We will discuss this issue below. 
B. U.S. Employment in a Managerial Capacity 
The Petitioner asserted that it seeks to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity, and therefore 
we need not address the requirements of an executive capacity. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not provide enough evidence and information to establish that it would employ the 
Beneficiary 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 
3 
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). 
If a petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all four elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the petitioner must then 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, 469F.3d1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether the beneficiary's 
duties will be primarily managerial, we consider the job duties, the company's organizational 
structure, the duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, 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 the beneficiary's actual duties and role in the business. 
The prospective U.S. employer must clearly describe the beneficiary's duties. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(5). 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not provided a sufficiently clear description. 
The job description includes nine broad categories, each said to occupy between 5% and 20% of the 
Beneficiary's time. Within those categories, there are several general responsibilities such as 
"[ c ]ollaborate with the General Manager and executive team to develop a comprehensive strategic 
plan" and "[e]xercise sound judgment to make prudent investment decisions." These general 
statements do not identify specific tasks that the Beneficiary would undertake or the time that the 
Beneficiary would devote to those specific tasks. 
In the RFE, the Director asked for additional details relating to specific tasks, including "tasks related 
to goal-setting, policy-making, and discretionary decision-making," and the time spent on those tasks. 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE included the same job description submitted previously. 
In the denial notice, the Director quoted the portion of the RFE that detailed the deficiencies in the job 
description. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not met its burden of proof to establish 
that it sought to employ the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the lack of contact information in the employers' letters does not 
diminish their probative value. The Petitioner does not address the identified deficiencies in the U.S. 
job description in any detail. 
In addition to the concerns that the Director expressed in the RFE, and repeated in the denial notice, 
review of the record raises further concerns about the U.S. job description. While the Petitioner's RFE 
response included an unchanged job description for the Beneficiary, the Petitioner submitted a very 
different organizational chart. The chart in the initial submission described the following hierarchy: 
• The Beneficiary 
■ 2 Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) 
■ 3 Registered Behavior Technicians (RBTs) 
• 7 RBT trainees 
4 
■ 3 administrative staff 
The chart in the RFE response showed different positions and a different hierarchy: 
• 1 BCBA 
o The Beneficiary 
■ 1 Administrative Director/ Assistant Clinical Director 
• 1 RBT 
o 3 RBT trainees 
• 1 Authorization & Intake Administrative Assistant 
o 3 RBT trainees 
The organizational charts disagree as to whether the Beneficiary would supervise the BCBAs or be 
supervised by one. The Beneficiary's job description does not mention BCBAs or RBTs. 
The job description indicates that the Beneficiary will "[ c ]ollaborate with the finance team," "[ f]oster 
a strong sales culture," "[l]ead pre-sales activities, including market research," and "[p]]rovide 
comprehensive training to the management team." These claimed responsibilities are not consistent 
with either version of the Petitioner's claimed staffing. The submitted job descriptions for the listed 
positions do not include responsibilities in finance, sales, or market research, and the Petitioner does 
not appear to have identified a "management team" subordinate to the Beneficiary. Given these 
inconsistencies, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has adequately described the Beneficiary's 
intended position in the United States. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity in the United States.2 The above 
conclusions are sufficient to determine the outcome of the appeal. Therefore, we reserve the remaining 
issues regarding the Beneficiary's prior employment abroad and whether the Petitioner and its foreign 
parent company are doing business. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not remedy documentary deficiencies identified by the Director, and the record does 
not contain enough consistent evidence and information to establish that the Petitioner seeks to employ 
the Beneficiary in a primarily managerial capacity. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's intended ·'duties require substantial experience in business management and 
expertise in the field of special needs children," along with "a profound understanding of local needs." We note that the 
Beneficiary's management experience consists of less than two years atl Iand her resume in the record does not 
establish any expe1iise in, or experience with, special needs children. Rather, her academic training and experience outside 
of have been in the visual arts, a field which the Beneficiary continued to study at the time of filing. And the 
Petitioner has not explained how the Beneficiary acquired "a profound understanding of local needs" when the record does 
not show that the Beneficiary has ever lived or worked in or near the Petitioner's location in !Nevada. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5