dismissed EB-1C Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12211071 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 17, 2020 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in leasing helicopters and the sale of aircraft parts, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as its president 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad 
prior to his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary acted as a personnel manager abroad 
overseeing supervisory and professional subordinates. 
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. 
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 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. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The sole issue we will address is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary acted in a 
managerial or executive capacity abroad. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was 
employed in an executive capacity abroad. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the 
Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity abroad. 
"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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(5) requires the Petitioner to submit a statement that clearly 
describes the duties performed by the Beneficiary abroad. 
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 foreign position meets 
all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the foreign position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties 
abroad, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the foreign employer's other 
employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether 
a given beneficiary's foreign duties will be primarily managerial, we consider the description of the 
foreign job duties, the foreign employer's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's 
subordinates employees abroad, the presence of other employees to relieve the beneficiary from 
performing operational duties, the nature of the foreign business, and any other factors that will 
contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business abroad. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's former foreign employer and its parent company has been 
"a pioneer in the implementation of aeronautical technologies" for more than "six decades," farther 
noting that it has "built a reputation as a well respected leader in the aircraft industry with its premier 
fleet of helicopters, logistic services and aircraft repair capabilities." The Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad as its vice president and business development manager from 2001 
until his entry into the United States as an L-lA nonimmigrant in 2015. The Petitioner listed some of 
the following duties for the Beneficiary in his former position abroad: 
Operations Management and Executive Duties (3-4 hours per day) 
• Approving the investment of technologies, such as replicating all databases and 
carrying operational control of international operations in 2011; 
• Overseeing and reviewing strategic direction and objectives; 
2 
• Establishing and communicating goals and objectives, defining methodologies and 
tasks; 
• Approving overall project plans, budgets, and work breakdown schedules in U.S., 
Venezuela, Panama, and the Caribbean; 
• Safeguarding the interests of the company's shareholders and making key decisions 
on how investment capital should be managed; 
• Consulting with outside experts to make strategic business decisions; and 
• Overseeing processes to safeguard assets and mitigate risks. 
Marketing/Strategizing Activities (2 hours per day) 
• Acquisition of new contracts to support sales and margin goals as established by 
the company business plan; 
• Identifying opportunities to raise investment revenue and negotiate with investors 
or joint venture opportunities; 
• Establishing and implementing long- and short-term strategies to deliver services 
to customers within reasonable schedules and budgets; 
• Overseeing marketing strategies and making decisions regarding how to best 
market products and services; 
• Act as a key contact for negotiations between the different international 
organizations; 
• Served as a Board Member of all three structures and facilitated synergies among 
all different companies; and 
• Overseeing and creating committees to help company on specific issues. 
Business development, Compliance (2 hours per day) 
• Overseeing the Company's compliance with applicable laws and regulations; 
• Maintaining communication with [the foreign employer] concerning new business 
opportunities and prospects; and 
• Identifying opportunities to meet with new and existing clients with the goal of 
expanding the geographical areas of services. 
Financial Functions (1 hour per day) 
• Monitoring accounting and financial reporting practices and reviewing financial 
and other controls; and 
• Supervising the Information Technology Manager, Finance Manager, and Business 
Development Manager. 
The Petitioner submitted a duty description that does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
primarily devoted his time to qualifying managerial duties abroad. For instance, despite asserting that 
the Beneficiary acted in a managerial role abroad from 2001 until his entry into the United States as a 
nonimmigrant in January 2015; there is little detail and no supporting documentation to substantiate 
his performance of managerial level duties abroad. In fact, the Beneficiary's duties are generic and 
could apply to a manager acting in any company or industry. For instance, the Petitioner did not detail 
or document strategic direction and objectives the Beneficiary set, "methodologies tasks" he defined, 
project plans he approved, budgets he set, or business operations he oversaw. Likewise, the Petitioner 
did not specifically articulate or submit supporting evidence to substantiate the key decisions on 
3 
investment capital the Beneficiary made, assets he safeguarded, risks he mitigated, new support sales 
contracts he acquired, long- and short-term strategies he established, marketing strategies he 
implemented, or "standards with future market coverage" he set up. 
Although we do not expect the Petitioner to detail and document all of the Beneficiary's managerial 
tasks, the lack of detail and supporting evidence on the record is noteworthy. For instance, the 
Petitioner mentioned that in 2011 the Beneficiary and the foreign board of directors "approved the 
investment of technologies that would result in the [foreign employer] replicating all databases and 
carrying operational control of international operations." However, there is little context or detail to 
make this statement credible, such as the investment, technologies, databases, or operations 
mentioned. Further, this example dates from well before the Beneficiary's three-year period of 
qualifying foreign employment prior to his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant in 2015. 
In addition, the Petitioner indicated that in November 2014 the Beneficiary "negotiated a loan with 
I I Bank i~ I that would increase the operational fleet by at least one aircraft within 
the first quarter of 2015 for international leasing" and noted that this solidified projects in the oil and 
gas industry. However, again, this one example over the Beneficiary's long claimed employment with 
the foreign employer lacks credible specifics, including the size of the loan, the aircraft purchased, or 
the specific oil and gas projects this expanded; and the Petitioner provided no supporting 
documentation to substantiate these activities. 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). 
Further, it is also noteworthy that there is no submitted supporting documentation to substantiate the 
Beneficiary's managerial tasks. Therefore, two vague examples of managerial tasks performed over 
the Beneficiary's long asserted foreign employment history are not sufficient to establish that he 
devoted a majority of his time to managerial tasks for one year in the three years prior to his entry into 
the United States. It is also significant that there is no supporting evidence reflecting the Beneficiary 
delegation of tasks to his asserted supervisory and professional subordinates while employed abroad, 
despite the Petitioner contending that he qualifies on this basis. 
The fact that the Beneficiary managed or directed a portion of the foreign business does not necessarily 
establish eligibility for classification as a multinational manager. By statute, eligibility for this 
classification requires that the duties of a foreign position be "primarily" managerial in nature. 
Sections 10l(A)(44)(A) of the Act. Even though the Beneficiary may have exercised discretion over 
some of the foreign employer's day-to-day operations and possessed some authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his 
foreign duties were primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing and Operations 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual was acting in a managerial 
capacity, the reasonable needs of the organization are taken into account in light of the overall purpose 
and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
4 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary supervised subordinate managers and professionals in his 
position abroad, claiming he qualified as a personnel manager. 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). Since the Petitioner does not assert that the 
Beneficiary qualified as a function manager abroad, we will only consider whether he was employed 
as a personnel manager. 
The Petitioner provided a foreign organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary supervised a 
"manager-information technology," a finance manager, and a business development manager. In 
addition, the chart indicated that the finance manager oversaw human resources, accounting, and 
invoicing managers. The human resources manager was also shown to supervise two personnel 
assistants, the accounting manager an accounting assistant, and the invoicing manager an invoicing 
assistant. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary qualified as a 
personnel manager abroad based on his supervision of subordinate supervisors or managers. First, we 
note that the provided foreign organizational chart indicated that the Beneficiary directly oversaw only 
one manager and supervisor overseeing subordinates of their own, the finance manager. However, the 
Petitioner provided no supporting evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's supervision and direction 
of the claimed finance manager. There is no evidence reflecting the Beneficiary's direction of this 
claimed manager or his delegation of duties to this employee. Further, the Petitioner submitted no 
supporting evidence to substantiate the employment of this claimed subordinate finance manager 
abroad during the Beneficiary's time of qualifying foreign employment or his personnel authority over 
them. As such, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary had the authority to hire or fire 
this claimed supervisory subordinate, recommend these actions, or take other personnel actions with 
respect to them. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
Further, the provided duty description for the Beneficiary's sole claimed subordinate manager abroad 
are generic and do not sufficiently corroborate the position. For instance, the Petitioner vaguely stated 
that the finance manager was tasked with "providing and interpreting financial information," 
"formulating strategic and long-term business plans," "developing financial management 
mechanisms," and "conducting reviews and evaluations for cost-reduction opportunities." However, 
this generic duty description includes no credible detail to sufficiently substantiate this claimed 
supervisory position, such as the strategic plans the finance manager formulated, financial 
management mechanisms they developed, or cost reduction initiatives they implemented. The duty 
description for the finance manager also did not discuss his claimed supervisory authority over other 
departments and managers, as reflected in the claimed foreign organizational chart. Therefore, the 
Petitioner did not properly demonstrate with credible evidence that the Beneficiary supervised 
subordinate supervisors or managers abroad. 
5 
In the alternative, the Petitioner did establish that the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel manager 
based on his supervision of subordinate professionals abroad. To determine whether a beneficiary 
managed professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate positions required a 
baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. C/ 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
(defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, 
states that "[t]he term profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, 
physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or 
seminaries." Therefore, we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than 
the degree held by the subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate 
employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional 
capacity. 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary supervised professional subordinates abroad. 
First, the Petitioner indicated that the finance manager "possesses the equivalent of a bachelor's degree 
in business administration with a concentration in banking and finance." However, it provides no 
supporting documentation to substantiate this assertion. Beyond this, the Petitioner does not indicate 
whether the claimed business development manager and information technology manager held 
bachelor's degrees, explain why they qualify as professionals, nor does it provide supporting 
documentation to corroborate that they held bachelor's degrees. In addition, as we have discussed, 
the Petitioner submitted no evidence to substantiate that the Beneficiary had personnel authority over 
subordinate professionals abroad, such as evidence of him performing personnel actions with respect 
to professionals, his delegation of duties to them, or even evidence to establish the employment of 
these asserted professionals with the foreign employment during the Beneficiary's asserted time of 
qualifying foreign employment. 
Meanwhile, the duties of the business development manager and information technology manager are 
also vague and do not sufficiently establish that they were professional positions subordinate to the 
Beneficiary. For example, the Petitioner ambiguously stated that the business development manager 
was responsible for "identifying business opportunities," "screening potential business deals by 
analyzing market strategies," and "recommending equity investments;" however, there is no detail 
specifically related to the foreign employer's business such as the business opportunities this claimed 
professional worked on, market strategies they analyzed, or equity investments they recommended. 
In addition, the Petitioner indicated that the information technology manager was tasked with 
"maintaining the network, (Server & PCs) and software" and the "distribution of paper and digital 
technical publications and libraries required on daily maintenance and operations of aircrafts and 
equipment." Again, this duty description was brief and generic and included little credible detail and 
did not sufficiently demonstrate that it was a professional position subordinate to the Beneficiary. As 
such, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary acted as a personnel manager abroad based 
on his supervision of subordinate professionals. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial 
capacity abroad. 
6 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7