dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Operations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18181572 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 08, 2021 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a designer of intelligent business operations, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as assistant vice president 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 the record did not establish, 
as required, 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 was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad prior to his entry into the 
United States as a nonimmigrant. The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen and a motion to 
reconsider which the Director dismissed . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts it submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would 
act as a personnel manager in the United States supervising professional subordinates. The Petitioner 
also contends that the Beneficiary qualified through working in a similar role abroad. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 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. The 
Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity abroad. Since this 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 would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 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 
l&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(i)(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 abroad in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the 
Beneficiary was 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) requires the Petitioner to submit a statement that clearly 
describes the foreign duties performed by the Beneficiary. 
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 the business abroad. 
2 
The Petitioner stated that it and the Beneficiary's former foreign employer are part of a group of 
worldwide companies operating as "a global services firm focused on delivering digital transformation 
for [its] clients." It farther noted that the company "architects,__ _______ _. through [a] 
patented .__ _________ _,framework that reimagines clients' operating model end-to-end." 
The Petitioner indicated that prior to the Beneficiary's entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant 
in October 2012, he was employed as a "Manager" and "Senior Manager" with his former foreign 
employer from January 2011 to September 2012. The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary "was 
responsible for managing the provision of [the foreign employer's] Finance and Accounting (F&A) 
Transformation solutions for our global clients with specific emphasis on the Order to Cash domain." 
The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary was tasked with ensuring that the "planned development 
of [company] solution products drove clients' improved business returns on investments and generated 
more reliable performance metrics" and developing "detailed project plans by establishing effective 
execution and delivery of project deliverables." The Petitioner provided the following duties for the 
Beneficiary's former position abroad: 
Project Management- Engagement Lead - 40% 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Manage the identification of viable F &A business opportumt1es across client 
organization structures by means by calibrated Value Stream Mapping (VSM) 
sessions - lean process mapping tool that employs a flow diagram documenting 
every step in the process as a fundamental tool to identify waste, reduce process 
cycle times, and implement process improvement. VSM helps users create a solid 
implementation plan that will maximize their available resources and help ensure 
that materials and time are used efficiently; 
Evaluate process gaps and handoff's based on [the company's] Lean Six Sigma 
proprietary tools ... designed to improve client organizations' process efficiency and 
productivity ... removing waste from business processes and helping them scale by 
industrializing their delivery; 
Oversee [the company's] client management operations to gauge, understand, and 
calibrate client expectations and project dependencies; 
Mange development and execution of detailed project plans by setting team 
objectives, scope, resources, and delivery timelines; 
Provide managerial guidance to ensure that the active engagement deliverables 
continue to meet with stipulated project objectives and timelines for streamlined 
implementation; 
Lead and manage engagement escalations during project status calls and meetings 
with client management teams and stakeholders; 
Manage the creation and design of scalable business cases based on multi-tiered 
cost and benefit analysis; and 
Manage foll-scale implementation processes for major business opportunity and 
engagement junctures within the client organization. 
Client Management - 30% 
• Manage partnership building organizational initiatives as [company's] trusted 
process optimization advisor to identify process pain points and improvement areas 
to drive optimization initiatives; 
3 
• Manage client relationships in designing future state v1s10n through system 
operating models and service placements; 
• Present project progress with recommendations to C-suite client leadership as part 
of [the company's] project steering committee; 
• Manage the identification and resolution of process communication issues, 
performance challenges, and risk mitigation action plans with client leadership; and 
• Ensure timely status delivery to all project stakeholders in client organizations as 
well as within the team. 
People and Team Management- 30% 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Coach team members on the [company] project management methodologies, 
process transformation approaches, corporate philosophy and optimization 
objectives on an ongoing basis; 
Manage end-to-end business system requirements gathering activity processes and 
review analysis reports produced by subordinates; 
Manage and conduct interviews for open positions and provide feedback to 
[company] HR; 
Manage and assign work arrangements to team members to ensure their workload 
volume optimization; and 
Review, approve, reject, or process leave requests for subordinates . 
The Petitioner submitted a foreign duty description for the Beneficiary that does not sufficiently 
establish he devoted his time primarily to qualifying managerial duties while employed abroad. In 
fact, the Beneficiary's duties and submitted supporting documentation, reflect his primary 
involvement in the direct provision of services to clients, or at minimum, his performance of ordinary 
operational activities alongside his colleagues. For instance, the Beneficiary's duty description 
included several non-qualifying tasks appearing to relate to the direct provision of goods and services 
to clients, such as him evaluating "process gaps" using the company's "Lean Six Sigma proprietary 
tools," working directly with client stakeholders on "engagement escalations," and managing "client 
relationships" through "operating models and service placements." Likewise, the Beneficiary's duty 
description discusses him presenting "project progress with recommendations to C-suite client 
leadership," identifying and resolving "process communication issues, performance challenges, risk 
mitigation plans with client leadership," and ensuring "timely status delivery to all project 
stakeholders." 
In contrast, the Petitioner submitted little supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary 
primarily delegating service provision functions to his claimed subordinates. For instance, the 
Petitioner submitted several emails dating from his foreign employment; however, few of these emails 
reflect the Beneficiary delegating tasks to his two claimed professional subordinates. In fact, one 
email from October 2011 reflects the Beneficiary distributing minutes from a project meeting and 
passing along specifications and requirements provided by the client, while another from July 2011 
reflected him fielding a billing question from a client. Another email from March 2011 again shows 
the Beneficiary listing meeting minutes related to a client engagement and indicated his responsibility 
for sending "reports with details" to the client. Further, an email from June 2011 shows the 
Beneficiary taking direction from an assistant vice president on providing specifications. However, 
4 
few of these emails clearly demonstrate the Beneficiary exerc1smg personnel authority over his 
claimed professional subordinates and him delegating non-qualifying operational tasks to them. 
Whether the Beneficiary was a managerial employee abroad turns on whether the Petitioner has 
sustained its burden of proving that their duties were "primarily" managerial. See sections 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Here, the Petitioner does not clearly document what proportion of the 
Beneficiary's duties were managerial functions and what proportion were non-qualifying. The 
Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's foreign duties, and provided supporting documentation, including 
both managerial tasks and administrative or operational tasks, but it did not sufficiently quantify and 
document the time he spent on these different duties. For this reason, we cannot determine whether 
the Beneficiary was primarily performing the duties of a manager abroad. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. 
Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
Further, to the extent the Petitioner discussed apparent managerial tasks in the Beneficiary's duty 
description, these were generic and the record lacks detail and supporting documentation to 
substantiate his performance of qualifying tasks. For instance, the Petitioner claimed that the 
Beneficiary devoted 30% of his time on "people and team management," but there is little supporting 
documentation to corroborate this claimed personnel management or his delegation of tasks to 
subordinates. Likewise, the Petitioner did not sufficiently detail and document the teams the 
Beneficiary directed, the "the process transformation approaches" he implemented, the work 
assignments he delegated, or the personnel decisions he made. 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), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
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 101(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 foreign organization are taken into account in light of its overall 
purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary supervised subordinate 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 
5 
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(i)(2). Since the Petitioner does not clearly 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 two 
assistant managers. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel 
manager based on his supervisory and personnel authority over these two professional subordinates. 
However, as we have discussed, there is little supporting documentation to substantiate the 
Beneficiary's personnel authority over his claimed subordinates abroad, such as his completion of 
personnel actions, performance reviews, or his hiring or firing of these employees, duties greatly 
emphasized in his duty description. In fact, one of the Beneficiary's claimed professional subordinates 
only appears in a small portion of the Beneficiary's foreign emails, while the other claimed assistant 
manager is not mentioned or listed in any of these many emails. Therefore, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate with sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary directly supervised other employees, had the 
authority to hire and fire them or recommend those actions, and to take other personnel actions. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2). 
In fact, the Petitioner submitted emails from the Beneficiary's time of foreign employment indicating 
he acted as a central point of contact on projects and followed up on certain operational aspects of 
projects, but this documentation did not clearly establish his personnel authority over professional 
subordinates. Further, the Beneficiary proposed U.S. position is assistant vice president and the 
provided U.S. organizational chart reflects his supervision of "Senior Managers" and "Managers," his 
former title abroad. However, none of the managers the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary oversees in 
the United States are shown to have subordinates of their own. The foreign organizational chart also 
indicated that the Beneficiary reported to an assistant vice president, the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. 
title, suggesting he had not yet been promoted to a supervisory or senior role prior to being transferred 
to the United States. This leaves farther question as to whether the Beneficiary's former role abroad 
was as a personnel manager with foll personnel authority over professional subordinates. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates worked in 
professional positions as defined the regulations, even if it had demonstrated his personnel authority. 
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. Cf 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 101 ( 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 clearly demonstrate that the positions subordinate to the Beneficiary were 
professional as defined by the regulations. First, the Petitioner did not specifically articulate why the 
6 
positions subordinate to the Beneficiary qualify as professional and why they require a bachelor's 
degree for their performance. The Petitioner also only provided supporting bachelor's degree 
educational information for one of the Beneficiary's claimed foreign subordinates. Further, the listing 
of the Beneficiary's asserted foreign subordinates, along with their duties and education levels, only 
vaguely indicated that one of the assistant managers had a "bachelor's degree," but did not specify the 
nature of this degree or what degrees were required for this position. In fact, the Petitioner submitted 
supporting paystubs for these foreign subordinates dating from January through April 2019, evidence 
not relevant to the time of the Beneficiary's foreign employment. 
This incomplete evidence leaves substantial uncertainty as to whether these positions abroad required 
a level of knowledge requiring a bachelor's degree. 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). As such, the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that 
the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel manager abroad based on his personnel authority over 
professionals as defined by the regulations. 
For the foregoing reasons, the evidence reflects that the Director was correct in denying the petition 
and dismissing the Petitioner subsequent motions as it did not establish that the Beneficiary acted in a 
managerial capacity abroad. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7