dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Process Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15280288 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 9, 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 an 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 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 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(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 in an executive capacity abroad. 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 provide "digitally-powered 
business process management and services." It noted that the company "architects Lean Digital 
enterprise 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 2010, he was employed as a "Manager" with his former foreign 
employer beginning in 2008. The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary "was responsible for the 
overall management of Reengineering process solutions as they related to Lean Digital and Lean Six 
Sigma offerings for our Healthcare industry clients." The Petitioner provided the following duties for 
the Beneficiary's former position abroad: 
Lean Six Sigma Process Management - 40% 
• Oversee delivery of business process reengineering (BPR) projects for major global 
clients 
• Direct team to develop reengineering strategies 
• Establish strategy to deliver business impact to clients through Lean Six Sigma 
Black Belt projects 
• Provide strategic oversight and direction for high impact business projects on 
process improvement 
• Exercise decision making authority over initiatives to reduce costs for clients and 
[company] using Lean and Six Sigma 
• Partner with clients and key stakeholders to deliver tangible benefits 
• Coach and mentor process owners and team members in Define, Measure, Analyze, 
Improve and Control improvement cycle 
• Host ideation sessions for continuous improvement 
• Orchestrate Visual Management audits and Lean Trainings 
• Manage reporting of process efficiency and effectiveness metrics 
• Direct end-to-end Lean workouts across all process steps using both functional and 
statistical tools 
• Manage the publication of project milestones to stakeholders on a biweekly basis, 
emphasizing improvement achievements 
• Advise and guide client teams, providing solutions and recommendations for 
implementation roadmaps 
• Establish strategy for planning and execution of projects 
• Schedule assignments and communicate the progress of projects to customers and 
stakeholders 
Training and Mentorship - 15% 
• Manage the execution of Green Belt trainings and Lean trainings for Operations 
team at all levels to drive Lean Six Sigma DNA and culture 
• Guide subordinate team members in executing Lean Six Sigma initiatives and 
Green Belt projects 
• Mentor resources to assist them in pursuing Six Sigma Green Belt certification 
• Conduct "train the trainer" sessions 
People Management - 35% 
• Interview prospective candidates for Quality Catalyst and Green Belt roles 
3 
• Train Quality Catalysts and Green Belts on basic Lean Six Sigma methodology 
• Oversee Lean Six Sigma Green Belt hires and evaluate their work as they drive 
process improvement culture among [the company's] overall operations 
• Sign off on business cases produced by Green Belts 
• Continuously monitor tasks and activities of subordinate team members 
• Guide team members for successful completion of deliverables, coach and mentor 
team members to overcome project challenges 
• Delegate project/engagement tasks to team members based on their individual 
strengths and experience 
• Responsible for determining resource allocation and for setting training goals and 
knowledge transfer for team members as well as guiding their professional 
development 
• Conduct team members' annual and semiannual performance appraisals and 
provide recommendations on performance and potential ratings 
• Recommend team members for promotion, recognition, retention, or dismissal 
Operations Management - 10% 
• Oversee Operations initiatives to drive business impact for customers 
• Manage Master Black Belt initiatives and other enterprise-wide programs such as 
Lean Six Sigma projects and strategic initiatives 
• Represent [company] at leadership trainings and advanced Lean Six Sigma 
trainings for professional development 
The Petitioner submitted a foreign duty description for the Beneficiary and other supporting evidence 
that does not sufficiently establish that he devoted his time primarily to qualifying managerial duties 
while employed abroad. In fact, the Beneficiary's duties, and other evidence, appears to 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 includes several non-qualifying tasks appearing to relate to the direct provision of goods 
and services to clients, such as him "deliver[ing] business impact to client[s] through Lean Six Sigma 
Black Belt projects," directing "end-to-end Lean workouts across all process steps using both 
functional and statistical tools," and publishing project milestones to stakeholders on a biweekly basis. 
In addition, the duties discuss other apparent operational tasks indicating that the Beneficiary provided 
services to clients alongside his colleagues, including advising and guiding client teams, providing 
solutions and recommendations for implementation roadmaps, planning the execution of client 
projects, communicating the progress of said projects, and performing "Green Belt" and "Lean" 
trainings for "the operations team." 
In contrast, the Petitioner submitted little supporting documentation to substantiate that the Beneficiary 
primarily delegated service provision functions to his claimed subordinates. For instance, the 
Petitioner submitted several emails dating from his foreign employment; however, none of these 
emails include the Beneficiary's asserted subordinates nor do they reflect his delegation of non­
qualifying tasks to them. In fact, one email from January 2010 reflects the Beneficiary working to 
close out "Leans" for audit purposes, while another reflected a table of projects he "mentored." 
However, none of these emails clearly demonstrate the Beneficiary exercising personnel authority 
over his claimed subordinates. 
4 
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 would be managerial functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying. 
The Petitioner lists the Beneficiary's duties as including both managerial tasks and administrative or 
operational tasks but does not sufficiently quantify and document the time he spends 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 overly 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 15% of his time on "training and mentorship" and 35% on "people 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 strategies he implemented, the trainings he provided, the 
projects he delegated, or the personnel decisions he made. It is also significant that there is no 
supporting evidence reflecting the Beneficiary's delegation of tasks to his asserted professional 
subordinates while employed abroad, despite the Petitioner contending that he qualifies on this basis. 
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). 
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 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, a manager, and four "Quality Catalysts- Process Developers." On appeal, the 
Petitioner states that the Beneficiary was "responsible for overseeing the day-to-day activities of seven 
(7) university-degreed [company] professionals" and contends that he had "the authority to hire and 
fire [them] or recommend those as well as other personnel actions." However, as we have discussed, 
there is no supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's personnel authority over his 
claimed subordinates abroad, such as his completion of personnel actions or performance reviews or 
his hiring or firing of these employees, duties greatly emphasized in his duty description. Therefore, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate with sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary directly supervised 
other employees and that he had the authority to hire and fire these employees or recommend those 
actions and take other personnel actions. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2). 
In fact, on appeal, the Petitioner submits emails from the Beneficiary's time of foreign employment 
indicating he may have mentored other colleagues and followed up on certain operational aspects of 
projects, but this documentation does not clearly establish his personnel authority over professional 
subordinates. Further, the Beneficiary proposed U.S. position is assistant vice president and his U.S. 
organizational chart reflects his supervision of "Managers," his former foreign title. However, none 
of these managers are shown to have subordinates of their own. The foreign organizational chart also 
indicates 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. 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 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 
positions subordinate to the Beneficiary qualify as professional and why they require a bachelor's 
degrees for their performance. In fact, the Petitioner only provided duties and educational information 
6 
for three of the Beneficiary's claimed foreign subordinates. This listing of the Beneficiary's asserted 
foreign subordinates, along with their duties and education, only vaguely indicated that two of the 
assistant managers and one of the managers had "bachelor's degrees," but did not specify the nature 
of these degrees or what degrees were required for these positions. In fact, supporting documentation 
reflected that the manager had earned a foreign degree in geography, a field not clearly related to the 
claimed position. Otherwise, the Petitioner provided no supporting evidence to substantiate the 
educational credentials of five of his seven subordinates. This incomplete and conflicting 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