dismissed EB-1C Case: Data Analytics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9093700 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 24, 2020 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a data analytics firm, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its "Analytics 
Manager" under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal because 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's U.S. position would be in a managerial capacity.1 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
the Petitioner's arguments regarding the Beneficiary's employment abroad. 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 ofL-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 )(1 )(C) of the Act. 
1 The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a 
managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary has been or would be employed in an executive 
capacity . 
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). 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component 
of the organization; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions 
(such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly 
supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or 
with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function 
for which the employee has authority. 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. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence establishing that the 
Beneficiary's position in the United States would be in a managerial capacity. 
To be eligible for immigrant visa classification as a multinational manager, the Petitioner must show 
that the Beneficiary performed 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 Beneficiaiy's 
proposed position meets all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying 
managerial position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the position in question meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficia1y primarily performed managerial duties, as 
opposed to ordinaiy operational activities alongside other employees within the U.S. entity. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a given 
beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial, we consider that beneficiary's job duties, the employer'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, 
2 
and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary manages the '~-----~ project and team," thus 
claiming that the Beneficiary manages a "major component" of the company, oversees supervisory 
and professional employees, has authority to hire and fire employees and take other personnel actions 
over the project team, and has discretion "in regards to directing the company through his team," 
consistent with sections 101(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. However, the record does not establish that 
the Beneficiary manages a component of the organization or that the subordinates he oversees are 
supervisors or occupy professional positions, as required by sections 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii), 
respectively. 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary is a personnel manager whose primary focus is 
management of the I lproject" in the product department. However, the Petitioner 
does not provide an overview of its organization or show the product department's placement within 
the organizational structure. Rather, in response to a notice of intent to deny (NOID) the Petitioner 
provided an organizational chart depicting the Beneficiary's position within the scope of a 15-person 
staff representing an isolated cross section of an organization that is claimed to be comprised of 186 
employees. Because the chart was untitled, it is unclear whether it pertains to the product department 
that is said to incorporate the 1 !project" that the Beneficiary is claimed to manage. 
The Petitioner also does not clarify which, if any, other projects are incorporated in the product 
department and the significance of other projects in comparison to the 'I I 
Furthermore, the partial organizational chart shows the director of analytics at the top of the 
organizational hierarchy and depicts the Beneficiary - the manager of analytics - as the director's 
subordinate. The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary, as opposed to the director of 
analytics, manages the portion of the organization depicted in the partial organizational chart. The 
remainder of the chart depicts a U.S.-based analytics lead as the Beneficiary's direct subordinate and 
shows that this subordinate directly oversees a staff comprised of two analytics leads, seven analytics 
specialists, and three senior analytics specialists, all based in I I China. Thus, although the 
Beneficiary's job duty breakdown states that the Beneficiary manages "a team of 13 direct reports 
both locally and remotely," the organizational chart described herein does not depict a staffing 
hierarchy that supports this claim. The Petitioner must support its asse1iions with relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would manage a component of 
the organization, as claimed. While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the day-to-day 
operations of a specific project within the product department, the Petitioner must still establish that 
the position meets all elements of the statutory definition of managerial capacity in the course of 
performing primarily managerial duties. The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's 
primary focus will be to manage a component of the company, as required by section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i) 
of the Act. 
Further, although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary manages a team of 13 professionals and 
offers employee paystubs and resumes as evidence of their respective educational credentials, the 
Petitioner focuses exclusively on the education levels attained by these employees, rather than the 
3 
educational levels required of their respective positions. To determine whether a beneficiary manages 
professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate positions require 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"). As the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that a baccalaureate degree was a prerequisite for the positions held by the Beneficiaiy' s claimed team 
of subordinates, it has not established that the Beneficiary meets the criteria of section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, which requires management of supervisory, managerial, or professional 
subordinates. 2 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's proposed 
position would be in a "managerial capacity" as defined in the statute governing this classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will manage an essential function. 
4