dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

MATTER OF G- .._I _ __. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 19, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner an 
.__ ___________ __, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its North American 
account manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required , that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
capacity . 
On appeal , the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary would assume the role of a function manager and 
asserts that the Director did not provide an analysis addressing this claim or adequately review the 
submitted evidence. 
Upon de nova review , we find that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 's U.S . 
employment will be in a managerial capacity. Therefore , 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. § 204.5G)(3). 
Matter of G-□ 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will continue to assume the role of a function manager in 
which he "directs the activities" in multiple departments and oversees the work of "matrix reports" in 
those departments. As the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in an 
executive capacity, we will not discuss whether the proposed position fits that statutory definition. 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to 
primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 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. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(3). 
On the other hand, the term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not 
primarily 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). 
A. Procedural History 
In a supporting cover letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "serves in a leadership role," 
"directs the activities" of various departments within the organization, and serves as a liaison between 
its own teams and the client's executive management team. The Petitioner also provided a job duty 
breakdown stating that the Beneficiary allocates his time as follows: 
• 15% serving as the client's primary point of contact by assessing and understanding the client's 
needs and delegating assignments to the Petitioner's teams to address those needs; 
• 10% coordinating, setting the agenda for, and guiding cross-functional planning sessions; 
• 20% managing the execution of business plans, coordinating with project managers, and 
supervising "implementation projects" for new business; 
• 10% guiding and assessing the work done by the product development team and prioritizing 
product enhancements and setting timelines accordingly; 
• 5% managing and coordinating the Petitioner's "Client Advisory Group"; 
• 30% leading the sales team in strategy meetings, overseeing the team's "creation of upsell 
opportunities," and evaluating their marketing pitches based on the Beneficiary's 
understanding of the client's needs and priorities; and 
• 10% directing the marketing team's activities, including the preparation of marketing material. 
2 
Matter of G-LJ 
The Petitioner also provided an organizational chart depicting the company's CEO at the top of the 
hierarchy, followed by an executive tier comprised of a vice president global head of marketing, a 
managing director global head of sales and client operations, and four senior vice presidents (SVPs ), 
including one SVP of platform product management, two SVPs of product development, and one SVP 
of North American sales. The chart depicts the Beneficiary at the third tier of the hierarchy subordinate 
to the SVP of North American sales, alongside the subordinates of the global sales managing director 
and the VP global head of marketing. The chart does not show any other employees in any of the 
other departments, nor does not illustrate a reporting structure of personnel who are claimed to support 
the Beneficiary's position. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner was asked to provide evidence illustrating its overall 
staffing levels and the reporting structure within the Beneficiary's department. The RFE instructed 
the Petitioner to provide information about employees who are subordinate to the Beneficiary and 
establish that the Beneficiary oversees the work of professional employees. 
In response, the Petitioner reiterated that the Beneficiary "serves in a leadership role," "directs the 
activities" of various departments within the organization, and serves as a liaison between its own 
teams and the client's executive management team. The Petitioner also provided a list of employees 
along with their names, position titles, and job duties, stating that the Beneficiary "directs the 
activities" of these professional employees, assigns their work and job objectives, and reviews their 
respective performances. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided another job duty breakdown containing different time allocations 
from the ones assigned in the original job description. Namely, the Petitioner doubled the time it 
previously allocated to coordinating, setting the agenda for, and guiding cross-functional planning 
sessions from 10% to 20%, while cutting the time spent leading the sales team in strategy meetings 
and overseeing their creation of "upsell opportunities and marketing pitches" from 30% to 15%. The 
Petitioner did not acknowledge or clarify these changes in time allocations. The Petitioner highlighted 
the Beneficiary's discretionary authority over client projects, stating that the Beneficiary assigns tasks 
to the sales, product, implementation, and on demand teams and approves final sales strategies. The 
Petitioner further stated that the Beneficiary relies on project managers to get project updates and 
claimed that the Beneficiary created a "matrix system to monitor the health of each client" and to 
ensure adherence to client requests. 
The Petitioner provided another organizational chart, showing the CEO at the top of the organizational 
hierarchy, followed by eight employees, including one VP global head of marketing, one SVP with no 
department specified in his job title, three SVPs overseeing business development and sales, product 
development, and platform product management, respectively, and three global heads overseeing 
finance, on demand service, and sales and client operations, respectively. The Beneficiary was 
depicted as subordinate to the SVP of business development and sales, at the third tier of the hierarchy, 
alongside five other subordinate employees with the word "manager" or "executive" in their respective 
3 
Matter C?f G-D 
position titles. 1 The chart uses dotted lines to show a nexus between the Beneficiary and other 
employees in the organization with whom he is claimed to have a collaborative relationship; the chart 
does not, however, show a reporting structure beyond the Beneficiary and the SVP of business 
development and sales, who is shown as the Beneficiary's superior. Beyond providing employee 
position titles and indicating that the Beneficiary has a relationship with employees outside his own 
department, the chart does not elaborate on those employees' job duties or clarify how they support 
the Beneficiary's position, which the Petitioner claims is comprised of primarily managerial job duties. 
In the denial decision, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary would not be employed in a 
managerial capacity, finding that the Beneficiary does not oversee the work of primarily degreed 
professionals and does not have the authority to hire and fire his claimed subordinates. 
On appeal, the Petitioner objects to the denial, contending that the Director incorrectly based the denial 
on the presumption that the Beneficiary would assume the role of a personnel manager. The Petitioner 
asserts that the Beneficiary would be employed in the role of a function manager 
B. Analysis 
Although the Petitioner clarifies its claim on appeal, expressly stating that the Beneficiary would 
assume the role of a function manager in his proposed position, it did not previously make this 
distinction and in fact included elements of a personnel manager in its descriptions of the Beneficiary's 
job duties. As noted above, the Petitioner previously referred to the Beneficiary's "matrix reports" 
and claimed that the Beneficiary directs the activities of subordinates, evaluates their respective 
performances, and "exercise[s] managerial authority over their daily tasks." The Director did not 
commit legal error by considering these claims when making a determination about the Beneficiary's 
employment in a managerial capacity. That said, we have reviewed the record within the context of 
the Petitioner's clarifying statements on appeal and although the Petitioner correctly states that a 
function manager is not required to supervise or control the work of degreed professionals or have 
hiring and firing authority over subordinates, the record lacks sufficient evidence to support the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's employment meets the criteria of a function manager. 
First, although the Petitioner defined the activity the Beneficiary will manage, it has not explained 
how this function is essential or core to the organization. See Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 
2017-05. Despite providing a list of entities it deemed as its "most significant clients in North 
America," the Petitioner did not discuss how these clients affect its main objective, which is to provide 
IT solutions to financial services firms worldwide. The Petitioner also discussed its organization's 
generation of $22 million in revenue during the 2016 fiscal year, but it did not provide any information 
as to the contribution of the North American accounts to this overall figure. In other words, the 
Petitioner did not establish how a function, whose main purpose is to target a subset of financial 
services firms in a specific region, impacts an organization that operates within the broader 
international context and targets clients worldwide. 
1 Although the chart lists an account receivables position at the same level of the hierarchy, it does not identify an employee 
in that position and instead names a senior executive finance employee as directly subordinate to the account receivables 
position, which does not appear to have been occupied at the time this chart was created. 
4 
Matter C?f G-D 
Further, despite claiming that the Beneficiary occupies a "key managerial position" and "serves in a 
leadership role within [the] U.S. organization," the Petitioner did not provide an organizational chart 
depicting the Beneficiary at a senior level within the organization or with respect to the function he is 
said to manage. While the Petitioner's most recently submitted organizational chart is more detailed 
than a previously submitted chart, it nevertheless shows that the Beneficiary's position is subordinate 
to the SVP of business development and sales, thus indicating that the Beneficiary's superior, rather 
than the Beneficiary, actually occupies the senior position with respect to the function and is only 
subordinate to the company's CEO. Despite providing a job description which indicates that the 
Beneficiary spearheads the sales function by developing sales proposals, driving calls with the client, 
and approving sales demonstrations and presentations, the Petitioner did not clarify how these 
responsibilities are consistent with the Beneficiary's organizational placement as subordinate to the 
SVP of business development and sales or how the Beneficiary's claimed management of the function 
is separate and apart from the SVP, who is depicted as occupying the senior-most position with respect 
to that function. As the Petitioner did not provide a job description for the SVP or for the SVP' s other 
subordinates, we are precluded from making a determination as to whether the Beneficiary's claimed 
job duties are consistent with his subordinate role with respect to the SVP of business development 
and sales. 
The Petitioner also made multiple references to project managers, indicating that the Beneficiary 
would coordinate with and oversee project managers to monitor the progress of business plan 
execution, but it did not include any project manager positions in the organizational charts. Likewise, 
although the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary "guides" the product development "team" and 
"directs the implementation group," the organizational chart does not specifically identify employees 
as being part of the "implementation group" and indicates that the SVP of product development, who 
is depicted as having no direct subordinates, is the only member of the product development "team." 
Thus, within the context of the information provided in the Petitioner's organizational chart, its use of 
terms such as "group" and "team," is misleading as no employees were identified as belonging to an 
"implementation group" and only one employee was associated with the product development 
function. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
The Beneficiary's job description also indicates that the Beneficiary "directs" the activities of the 
marketing team. However, the Petitioner did not clarify which employees comprise "the marketing 
team," nor did it explain why the Beneficiary is charged with directing that team's activities when the 
latest organizational chart shows that the Petitioner has a VP global head of marketing and a 
subordinate marketing manager, who, together, are presumably in charge of the marketing function. 
If users finds reason to believe that an assertion stated in the petition is not true, users may reject 
that assertion. See, e.g., Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); Anetekhai v. INS, 876 F.2d 
1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 1988); 
Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
In sum, the Petitioner provided a job description that is not consistent with the Beneficiary's 
organizational placement and employee reporting structure as depicted in its organizational chart. As 
such, we are unable to determine precisely how the Beneficiary would manage a function that is 
5 
Matter of G- □ 
claimed to be essential to the organization or who would perform the underlying job duties associated 
with that function. 
In light of the deficiencies described above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of G-~I -~I ID# 5238185 (AAO Sept. 19, 2019) 
6