dismissed EB-1C Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 16270427 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 20, 2021 
Form I-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a provider of engineering consultation services, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its "General 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 )(1 )(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: (1) it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer; 
(2) it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity; (3) it had the ability to pay 
the Beneficiary's proffered wage since the time of filing; and ( 4) the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
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 employment abroad was in a managerial or 
executive capacity. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner 's arguments regarding the remaining issues cited above. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make finding;; 
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). The petition must also be 
accompanied by evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered 
wage at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficia1y 
was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 1 
"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 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary performed certain high-level responsibilities. Section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act. The 
Petitioner must also prove that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed 
to ordinary operational activities alongside the foreign entity's other employees. See Family Inc. v. 
USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). Further, when staffing levels are used as a factor in 
determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial capacity, the reasonable needs of the 
organization must be considered in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
Accordingly, the critical factors to consider when making a determination regarding a beneficiaiy's 
foreign employment include the beneficiary's job duties along with evidence regarding the nature of 
the foreign business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
The record as presently constituted lacks sufficient evidence pertaining to the factors listed above. 
Although the Petitioner provided a supporting statement at the time of filing, it offered limited 
information about the Beneficiary's foreign employment, stating only that the Beneficiary acted as the 
foreign entity's business manager and "coordinator engineer," roles that involved "managing the day[­
]to [-]day business operations" and "managing and directly supervising from Venezuela the work of 
professional [ e ]ngineers" who worked on projects in Colombia, Chile, the Dominican Republic, and 
1 The Petitioner referred to the Beneficiary's "managerial qualifications" and "experience in business management;' 
thereby indicating that the Beneficiary's employment abroad was in a managerial capacity. As such, we will limit our 
discussion to the basis of the Petitioner's claim and we will not discuss whether the Beneficiary's foreign employment fJts 
the definition of executive capacity. 
2 
Mexico. The Petitioner did not further elaborate on the Beneficiary's foreign employment or discuss 
the foreign entity's organizational and staffing hierarchy and the Beneficiary's placement therein. 
Instead, the Petitioner submitted evidence that focused on its own staffing and organizational 
composition. Although the Petitioner provided a chart depicting the foreign organizational structure, 
the chartoff eredonly a limited view of the foreign entity within the scope ofits multinational presence, 
showing that its operations are headquartered in Chile with offices in the United States, Mexico, 
Venezuela, and the Dominican Republic. 2 The Petitioner did not, however, discuss the Beneficiary's 
job duties and placement within the foreign organization, nor did it describe the foreign entity's 
staffing structure or identify the employees who supported the Beneficiary and relieved her from 
having to primarily perform non-managerial job duties. 
Furthermore, although the Director issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) stating that the record 
included only broad statements about the foreign employment and lacked a description of the 
Beneficiary's foreign job duties, the Petitioner did not address this evidentiary deficiency in its N OID 
response. Instead, it provided a sworn statement from the Beneficiary explaining that even though her 
foreign employer was a Chilean entity, she did not work in Chile, but rather worked in Venezuela and 
supervised professionals in Chile, Mexico, Venezuela, and Colombia. 
The Petitioner also provided the Beneficiary's partially translated resume in which the Beneficiary 
described her employment abroad as "Serving as the Project Coordinator, [sic] in the areas of Transit 
Management, transportation modeling, transportation demand estimation, and transportation netw01k 
simulation, as well as an integrated participation of its planning and supervision." Although the 
Beneficiary indicated that she also participated in various studies, such studies appear to be listed in 
the foreign language iteration of the resume and are not included in the translation, thereby indicating 
that the translation is incomplete and does not meet regulatory criteria, which requires that any 
document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R 
§ 103 .2(b )(3 ). This additional deficiency further detracts from our ability to assess the accuracy of the 
submitted document and precludes a meaningful understanding of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties. 
In denying the petition, the Director noted that failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a 
material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(6)(14). The 
Director found that the Petitioner did not adequately address the evidentiary deficiency described in 
the NOID with regard to the Beneficiary's foreign employment and therefore concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
Although the Petitioner disputes the denial on appeal, it focuses primarily on the other three grounds 
cited in the Director's decision, 3 making only brief mention of the Beneficiary's foreign employment 
Namely, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "was a Manager paid and controlled by the Foreign 
Entity," which the Petitioner describes as "a hybrid organizational structure" with employees in Chile, 
the Dominican Republic, the United States, Venezuela, and Mexico. The Petitioner explains that the 
foreign entity is "project oriented," thereby making it critical for its business managers to rely on all 
2 Because we have reserved the qualifying relationship issue, we will not evaluate the validity of Petitioner's claims 
concerning its offices at these various locations. 
3 The Directoralso based on the denial on the conclusion that thePetitionerdid not establish that it: (1) had the ability to 
pay the Beneficiaiy's proffered wage; (2) established a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer, 
and (3)would employ the Beneficiary in a managerialorexecutivecapacity. 
3 
employees to "serve the specific needs of individual projects," regardless of the employees' respective 
locations. The Petitioner provides no further information about the Beneficiary's role or placement 
within the foreign organization, nor does it offer a detailed description of the job duties the Beneficiaty 
performed as one of the foreign entity's business managers. Instead, the Petitioner refers to the 
"extensive documentation" that it claims to have provided in supportofLlA petitions that it previously 
filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. 
The Director's decision does not indicate whether the prior approvals of the other nonimmigrant 
petitions had been reviewed in the course of reaching a decision in the matter at hand. That said, if 
the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same evidence contained in the 
current record, the approval would constitute an error on the part of the Director. We are not required 
to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of 
prior approvals that may have been erroneous. Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 
597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be umeasonable for USCIS or any agency to treat acknowledged errors 
as binding precedent. Sussex Eng 'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), ce11. 
denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Fmihem1ore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a comt 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center Director had approved the nonimmigrant 
petitions on behalf of the Beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of 
a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). 
Accordingly, we will not rely on the Petitioner's prior petition approvals as evidence ofits ineligibility 
in the matter at hand. 
As previously discussed, a detailed job description is critical to conveying a beneficiary's job duties 
and role within an organization. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a 
beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or 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), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The Petitioner in this matter has 
neglected to discuss the Beneficiary's role within the foreign organization or the job duties she 
performed in her former position, despite being advised that the record lacks this critical evidence of 
the Beneficiary's eligibility. As stated above, failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a 
material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b)(14) 
In sum, because the Petitioner has not provided evidence pertaining to the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment, we cannot assess the Beneficiary's former job duties and role within the foreign 
organization and therefore we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary primarily performed duties of a 
managerial nature so that she can be deemed as someone who was employed in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4