dismissed EB-1C Case: Automotive Components Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19070570 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a hybrid electronic vehicle components manufacturer, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as a "Senior Contracts Manager" in the United States under the 
first 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 record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States. In addition, the Director determined the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
acted in a managerial or executive capacity abroad prior to his entry into the United States as a 
non immigrant. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends it submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary 
qualified abroad, and would qualify in the United States, as a function manager. The Petitioner asserts 
that the Director ignored detailed U.S. and foreign job duty descriptions provided for the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner emphasizes that the Director indicated the Beneficiary would perform non-qualifying 
operational tasks but did not articulate them. The Petitioner also points to a recently approved L-lA 
nonimmigrant visa approved by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and 
contends this reflects the Beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
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 since the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a 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 its appellate arguments regarding whether the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 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 be 
employed 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). 
The Petitioner only contends that the Beneficiary would qualify as a function manager, indicating that 
he has no direct subordinates. The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both 
"personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 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 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 "(l) 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). 
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). 
2 
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, 
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 "a designer and manufacturer of highly-engineered, precision operator 
interface controls, and power management systems for commercial and off-road industrial vehicles." 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary is tasked with providing "expert commercial and 
contracts support ... and managing the commercial and contracts function" and "support on negotiating 
major contracts, resolving legal disputes and general commercial and contracts support." It farther 
explained that the Beneficiary was responsible for formulating "contract policies, goals, procedures, 
methods, commercial practices and standards for Industrial and Valve Division and its business units 
and to negotiat[ing] and sign[ing] binding contracts on behalf of the company." In addition, it stated 
that the Beneficiary was tasked with providing "direction and advice" to the company's "vice­
presidents, individual unit general managers, financial controllers, directors, and senior sales 
managers," while also supervising and providing "functional leadership" to sales, project, and 
quotation teams. 
The Petitioner listed the following duties for the Beneficiary as its senior contracts manager: 
• Formulates and drafts internal control policies, procedures, methods, commercial 
practices, and standards within Industrial and Valve business units. (typically about 
5% of working hours) 
• Directs general managers and senior sales managers within the Industrial and Valve 
business units on implementation of such policies, procedures, methods, and 
practices within their business units. (typically about 5% of working hours) 
• Supervise work and provides functional leadership to projects and quotation teams 
within the Industrial and Valve Division. Monitors and audits business units' 
compliance with established contract policies and procedures on a regular basis. 
Provides reports to management with improvement recommendations. (typically 
about 10% of working hours) 
• Provides commercial leadership on the bid strategy and negotiations to the sales 
teams and general managers of the business units. Reviews major ($500K +) bids 
3 
to ensure compliance with company policy and law. (typically about 10% of 
working hours) 
• Leads negotiations of the terms and conditions of major ($SOOK+) contracts and 
framework agreements. Organizes and manages cross-functional teams during this 
process. (typically about 10% of working hours) 
• Evaluates and executes major ($SOOK+) commercial contracts for the business 
units. Provides sign-off of the major contracts entered into by the company 
subsidiaries. Responsible for ensuring that the terms and conditions of the contracts 
can be complied with. (typically about 5% of working hours) 
• Provides business units with commercial leadership on major commercial disputes, 
resolution of debts. Organizes and manages internal teams to institute or defend 
major contractual claims against customers and suppliers. Where disputes do go to 
court/arbitration, acts as a business point of contact to work with external lawyers 
to prepare court submissions. (typically about 15% of working hours) 
• As a subject matter expert, provides guidance on commercial and contract matters, 
including training to new sales and project managers in contracting practices and 
procedures (typically about 10% of working hours) 
• Serves as a contractual point of contact on mergers and acquisitions work. 
(typically about 5% of working hours) 
• Works with data protection team to ensure policies and contracts are in accordance 
with international data privacy legislation. (typically about 5% of working hours) 
• Supervises contracts support to sales representatives and distributors network of 
250+ entities. (typically about 2% of working hours) 
• Works with finance to ensure adherence to broader finance and risk requirements 
such as revenue recognition. (typically about 2% of working hours) 
• Works with legal department and external lawyers to ensure performance of 
contracts and operations in compliance with law. (typically about 2% of working 
hours) 
• Support product management/marketing to ensure company products and services 
are offered with appropriate and competitive terms and conditions. (typically about 
2% of working hours) 
• Monitors competitive terms and customer satisfaction, recommends and 
implements changes. (typically about 2% of working hours) 
• Ensures signed contracts are communicated to all relevant parties to provide 
visibility and support implementation. (typically about 2% of working hours) 
The Beneficiary's duties and the submitted supporting evidence indicate his likely involvement in 
several non-qualifying operational duties related to providing contract support rather than managerial­
level tasks overseeing a defined function within the organization. For instance, the Beneficiary's 
duties stated that he has, and would be, regularly responsible for providing advice to various company 
managers on contract issues, providing reports to senior leadership on improving policies and 
procedures, and reviewing bids and terms and conditions within contract documents. Likewise, the 
Beneficiary's duty description included other apparent non-managerial duties, such as him ensuring 
that claims in contract disputes were folly supported by evidence, acting as a point to contact on 
disputes with external counsel, assisting with mergers and acquisitions work, and monitoring 
compliance with various policies and laws, such as data privacy and revenue recognition. These 
4 
various support related operational tasks are included throughout the Beneficiary's duty description, 
making it difficult to discern how much time he devotes to say, reviewing and drafting terms and 
conditions and reviewing bid documentation, as compared to managing negotiation teams and 
exercising managerial authority over other senior managers within a defined function. In other words, 
the Beneficiary's duty description indicates that he is more likely performing his claimed function of 
contract management, rather than managing it and being primarily relieved from its non-qualifying 
operational aspects. 
Likewise, the Petitioner submitted an "example business day" for the Beneficiary also including 
several support related non-qualifying operational tasks, such as him assisting on contract negotiation 
calls with sales and finance managers, reviewing "technical positions" in preparation for contract 
negotiations, and a conducting a "review of [a] strategic partnership proposal for a major American 
off-road vehicle manufacturer." In sum, although it appears that the Beneficiary is likely a key 
contributor in contract negotiations, it is not clear that he has ultimate authority over these negotiations 
and actual managerial authority over a specific function, as well as other colleagues as claimed. The 
Beneficiary's duty description reflects that he is more likely acting in a support role assisting senior 
managers and the legal department during contract negotiations and disputes. It is also noteworthy 
that the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary exercises managerial authority over "sales, projects, and 
quotation teams," but there is little supporting documentation to substantiate this assertion. 
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 lists the 
Beneficiary's duties as including both managerial and administrative or operational tasks but does not 
sufficiently quantify the time he would spend on these different duties. For this reason, we cannot 
determine whether the Beneficiary is primarily performing 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 supervising sales, project, and quotation teams, 
organizing and leading "cross-functional teams," implementing contract policies, procedures, 
methods, commercial practices, and standards, directing senior managers, or holding ultimate 
managerial authority over contract negotiations and disputes. 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 managerial 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 others. 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 ofreiterating 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 
5 
Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the reqms1te 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, Function Manager 
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. 
As discussed, the Petitioner exclusively asserts that the Beneficiary would qualify as a function 
manager. The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary reported to 
a "Senior Director, Contracts CW- Industrial Division." This leaves uncertainty as to whether the 
Beneficiary would act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy of his function and exercise 
discretion over the function's day-to-day operations. See Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-
05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary is the senior manager of 
contracting within his division; however, the submitted organizational chart reflects that he reports to 
the apparent senior manager of the division's contracting function. The Petitioner must resolve this 
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). 
Further, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary acts through delegations of authority from the 
company's chief executive officer, general counsel, and the senior contracting director, indicating that 
these senior managers have actual discretion over contracts within the division. The Petitioner has 
also not clearly defined and documented these stated delegations of authority to, in tum, fully 
understand the true nature of his function. As noted, the Petitioner provided little supporting evidence 
to substantiate that the Beneficiary was responsible for supervising sales, project, and quotation teams, 
organizing and leading "cross-functional teams," implementing contract policies, procedures, 
methods, commercial practices, and standards, directing senior managers, or holding ultimate 
managerial authority over contract negotiations and disputes. 
Without this clarity, it appears more likely that the Beneficiary is regularly reporting to its legal 
department and the senior contract director within his own division for direction and approval with 
respect to the contract management function. Further, the submitted organizational chart reflected that 
the Beneficiary would have "indirect/functional management" over various sales and operations 
managers within the division. However, it has provided little supporting documentation to corroborate 
this assertion. Given the existence of a more senior contract director within the division, it appears 
more likely that the Beneficiary works alongside these colleagues in contract formulation and 
negotiation, rather than exercising defined managerial authority over them. 
The Petitioner has also not clearly defined the Beneficiary's function. As discussed, the contracting 
function within the Beneficiary's division appears to be led by the senior director, contracts. As such, 
the Beneficiary's function within this structure is not sufficiently clear. The submitted evidence 
suggests that the Beneficiary works on numerous bids, contract negotiations, and disputes with various 
sales, operational, and other employees. For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "may 
work with hundreds of [company] employees and therefore it is not possible to provide employment 
6 
details of all employees with whom [he] works." It also noted that he works with various vice 
presidents, directors, officers, senior managers, and project, sales, and quotation teams; teams 
numbering from five to 30 individuals. Further, the Beneficiary's daily schedule reflected that he 
worked on several of these teams at any given time. Therefore, the Beneficiary's position appears 
very fluid, rather than a very clearly defined function over which he has specific managerial authority. 
Lastly, as we discussed at length in the previous section, the Beneficiary's duty descriptions included 
several non-qualifying operational tasks, leaving substantial uncertainty as to whether he would 
primarily manage his function, rather than perform it, even if the function was clearly defined. For 
the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed as a function manager in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also points USeIS' approval of an L-lA intracompany transferee visa on 
behalf of the Beneficiary related to the same position "less than six months earlier." The Petitioner 
emphasizes this was approved under the same legal standard. We acknowledge users records 
indicate that the Beneficiary was previously approved for L-lA intracompany transferee 
nonimmigrant visas filed by the Petitioner, a category largely mirroring the immigrant classification 
for multinational executives or managers. However, it is important to note that each petition filing is 
a separate proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of proof. In making a determination 
of statutory eligibility, users is limited to the information contained in that individual record of 
proceeding. 8 e.F.R. § 103.2(b )(l 6)(ii). 
The Director's decision does not indicate whether they reviewed the prior approvals of the other 
nonimmigrant petitions. If the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same 
evidence contained in the current record, their approval would constitute an error on the part of the 
Director. We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. Matter of Church 
Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (eomm'r 1988). Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the 
Petitioner has not established in the current record of proceeding that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial capacity in the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7