dismissed EB-1C Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-&C-US INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 30, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , a provider of investment banking and financial advisory services, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as a vice president under the first-preference, immigrant classification for multinational 
executives and managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(C) , 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows an international business 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 and the Petitioner's following 
motion to reconsider. The Director concluded that, contrary to the Act and Department of Homeland 
Security regulations , the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's employment abroad in an 
executive or managerial capacity. 
On appeal , the Petitioner argues that the Director disregarded evidence of the managerial nature of 
the Beneficiary's foreign employment and mischaracterized some of her job duties as "non­
qualifying." 
Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. MULTINATIONAL MANAGERS AND EXECUTIVES 
A manager or executive who has worked abroad for at least one year may immigrate to the United 
States to continue to render managerial or executive services to the same employer , or its subsidiary 
or affiliate. Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act. If a beneficiary already works in the United States in 
nonimmigrant visa status for a petitioner or its related business , the petitioner must demonstrate that 
the worker's year of foreign employment occurred in the three years before his or her U.S. entry. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B). 
A petitioner for a multinational manager or executive must submit a statement from an authorized 
company official demonstrating a beneficiary's satisfaction of the classification's statutory 
requirements. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A)-(C). The statement must also establish that the 
petitioner has been doing business for at least one year. 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(j)(3)(D). U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may also request additional evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(ii). 
Matter of R-&C-US Inc. 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary worked abroad in a managerial capacity. The term 
"managerial capacity" means employment that primarily involved: 1) managing an organization or 
its department, subdivision, function, or component; 2) supervising and controlling the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or managing an essential function; 3) holding 
authority to take or recommend personnel actions, or, if not supervising other employees, 
functioning at a senior-level within an organization or with respect to a managed function; and 4) 
exercising discretion over day-to-day operations of an activity or function. Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(44)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
As the definition of the term indicates, managerial capacity may involve management of personnel 
or an essential function. The Petitioner does not assert the Beneficiary's management of a function 
abroad. We will therefore consider her foreign employment as a personnel manager. 
Personnel managers must have primarily supervised and controlled the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees. Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
"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." Section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(iv); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(4)(i). If a beneficiary directly supervised employees, he or 
she must also have had the authority to hire and fire them, or to recommend those and other 
personnel actions. Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
Here, the record indicates that the Beneficiary entered the United States in February 2014 as an L­
IA nonimmigrant with permission to temporarily work for the Petitioner in a managerial or 
executive capacity. See section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act (authorizing the temporary U.S. 
employment of intracompany transferees in those capacitier. Durilng the one-year period before the 
Beneficiary's entry, the PetitioTr's pjorted affiliate in employed her in the position of 
manager. The Petitioner and the business provide similar financial services. 
A. Job Duties 
When considering the managerial nature of a position, USCIS examines the position's job duties. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) (requiring a petitioner to "clearly describe the duties to be performed by 
the alien"). A petitioner must demonstrate that a beneficiary performed the high-level 
responsibilities stated in the definition of the term "managerial capacity." Champion World, Inc. v. 
INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table) (9th Cir. 1991). A petitioner must also prove that a beneficiary 
primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to operational activities. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
In a letter responding to the Director's written request for additional evidence (RFE), the .... I _ ____, 
company's head of human resources stated that the Beneficiary spent about half her time as manager 
"[ o ]verseeing the management and structuring" of complex, merger and acquisition transactions. 
More specifically, the letter stated that she "[ c ]oordinat[ ed] the execution of transactions," including 
preparing marketing materials, business valuation analyses, merger and leveraged buy-out models, 
and client/board presentations. She also led "due diligence" efforts regarding acquisitions and sales, 
2 
Matter of R-&C-US Inc. 
coordinating information and supervising calls and meetings among sellers, potential buyers, and 
their advisors. Also, "with the assistance of analyst(s) and intern(s)," the Beneficiary prepared 
analyses and arguments to support contract negotiations and the structuring of transactions. 
The company's letter stated that the Beneficiary spent about 35% of her time 
"[g]uiding teams of analysts" in preparing for meetings and creating marketing presentations for 
clients. This part of her job also included directing and counseling junior team members, ensuring 
use of best practices, and reviewing and checking analysts' work. 
The Beneficiary reportedly spent the remaining 15% of her time "[m]entoring and developing" 
analysts. As part of these duties, she "oversaw the hiring and work of several analysts and interns," 
and trained analysts. 
The Director found the descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties to be "broad, vague and 
generalized," insufficient to establish her employment in a managerial capacity. As previously 
indicated, petitioners must "clearly describe" beneficiaries' job duties. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(5). Also, 
"[ s ]pecifics are clearly an important indication of whether [ a beneficiary's duties were] primarily 
executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions [ of the terms managerial and 
executive capacity] would simply be a matter ofreiterating 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). 
Contrary to the Director's decision, we find the descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties 
to be sufficiently detailed. The affiliate's letter specified the types of activities that the Beneficiary 
oversaw. The activities included "the management and structuring of a wide range of complex 
transactions - including sell-sides and buy-sides, cross-border and domestic, public and private," and 
the preparation of "marketing materials, valuation analysis, merger and leveraged buy-out models, 
and client/board presentations." The letter also provided examples of duties the Beneficiary 
performed on specific projects during her tenure as manager. 
We agree with the Director, however, that the record does not sufficiently specify the amount of time 
the Beneficiary spent on each job duty. Rather, the letter from the foreign company lists multiple 
duties under each of three time percentages (50%, 35%, and 15%). The absence of time percentages 
for each duty undermines the claimed qualifications of the Beneficiary because the record does not 
demonstrate the managerial nature of all her foreign duties. For example, the letter states that the 
duties on which she spent 50% of her time included not only supervising the preparation of financial 
models, analyses, and presentations, but also preparing such materials herself. The letter states that 
the Beneficiary "prepar[ ed] analysis and arguments for negotiation purposes with the assistance of 
analyst[ s] and intern[ s ]." The letter also states that, on one project, she "assist[ ed] a team of 
Analysts in the preparation of financial models and business valuation." The record does not detail 
how much time the Beneficiary spent supervising others in the preparation of materials and how 
much time she spent preparing materials herself. Also, the duties on which the Beneficiary spent 
15% of her time included recruiting analysts and interns. The Petitioner, however, has not 
demonstrated that her recruitment activities involved supervising and controlling the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(2) (both defining the term "managerial capacity"). So, for example, if the Beneficiary 
spent 40% of her time preparing financial models, analyses, and presentations herself and 10% of 
3 
Matter of R-&C-US Inc. 
her time recruiting analysts and interns, the record would not demonstrate that she primarily engaged 
in managerial duties. The descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties therefore do not 
establish her work abroad in a managerial capacity. 
Also, because the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary directly supervised others abroad, the 
company must show that she had "the authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other 
personnel actions (such as promotion and leave authorization)." Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the 
Act; 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). The letter from the I I company states that the Beneficiary 
"oversaw the hiring . . . of several analysts and interns" and that she "conduct[ ed] performance 
reviews of Analysts." The letter thus indicates that the Beneficiary could recommend hiring of 
employees. But, contrary to the definition of the term "managerial capacity," the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary could fire workers, or recommend their terminations, or that she 
could take or recommend other personnel actions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director violated users policy by finding that the 
Beneficiary's foreign job duties of mentoring, training, and recruiting analysts and interns were 
"non-qualifying." The Petitioner notes that the occupational classification system of the U.S. 
Department of Labor lists the recruitment of staff members and the overseeing of training programs 
among the "core tasks" of financial managers. See Occupational Information Network (O*NET), 
"O*NET Online," https://www.onetonline.org/link/details/11-3031.02 (last visited Oct. 17, 2019). 
To determine the managerial nature of a position, however, users does not refer to an occupation's 
tasks on O*NET. Rather, as previously indicated, a petitioner must demonstrate that a beneficiary 
performed the high-level responsibilities stated in the statutory and regulatory definition of the term 
"managerial capacity." Family, 469 F.3d at 1316; Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. The context 
of the Director's decision indicates that, by describing the Beneficiary's foreign job duties of 
mentoring, training, and recruiting as "non-qualifying," the Director meant that the duties do not 
sufficiently correspond to the managerial responsibilities listed under the definition of the term 
"managerial capacity." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). Under the facts 
of this case, we believe that the Beneficiary's duties involving mentoring and training of analysts 
and interns sufficiently relate to supervising and controlling their work pursuant to section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act and 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). But, as previously indicated, we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's recruitment of analysts and 
interns abroad sufficiently relates to the managerial responsibilities described in those provisions. 
Thus, the job duties provided by the Petitioner do not establish the managerial nature of the 
Beneficiary's foreign employment. 
For the foregoing reasons, the descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties do not demonstrate 
her employment abroad in a managerial capacity. We will next consider additional factors affecting 
the nature of the Beneficiary's foreign employment. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
In determining the managerial nature of a foreign position, users considers potential factors other 
than the position's job duties. users may consider: the organizational structure of the foreign 
4 
Matter of R-&C-US Inc. 
employer; the nature of its business; the existence of other employees who relieved a beneficiary 
from performing operational activities; and the duties of the beneficiary's subordinates. 
The Petitioner asserts that, as a manager at thel I company, the Beneficiary "directly managed 
more than eight (8) foll-time financial professionals including two (2) Senior Analysts, six (6) 
Analysts, and a pool of interns." The record, however, does not support the Petitioner's claim. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart of the I I firm placing the Beneficiary on a 
level with four other managers. The five managers are above two senior analysts, six analysts, and a 
pool of interns. The chart contains no lines from individual managers to analysts or the intern pool. 
The chart therefore indicates that the managers collectively supervised the analysts and interns. 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, the chart does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary herself 
managed eight analysts and a pool of interns. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) 
(requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistences of record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies). If others supervised the Beneficiary's subordinates or helped her to 
supervise them, the record does not demonstrate that she primarily worked in a managerial capacity. 
Also, although the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary managed eight financial professionals, 
the letter from thel I firm provided examples of three projects on which she participated, stating 
that she managed only two analysts on each project. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
Further, the record does not establish the Beneficiary's primary supervision of "professional" 
employees. A professional must hold a position requiring at least a bachelor's degree for entry into 
an occupational field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining the term "profession" to include "any 
occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation"). The Petitioner's general counsel described the job 
duties of analysts at the I I firm as including: researching industries; developing and 
maintaining financial models; applying various techniques to value businesses; drafting sales 
documents; and supporting coordination of financial transactions. These duties closely resemble 
those of the position of "financial analyst" on O*NET, which states that most financial analyst 
positions require bachelor's degrees. See O*NET, "O*NET Online," https://www.onetonline.org/ 
link/summary/13-2051.00 (last visited Oct. 18, 2019). The record therefore establishes the 
professional nature of the analysts who worked under the Beneficiary abroad. The Petitioner, 
however, has not demonstrated that the position of intern at the I I affiliate similarly required a 
bachelor's degree. The record lacks a description of an intern's job duties. The record also does not 
specify how many interns the Beneficiary supervised. The record therefore does not establish that 
the Beneficiary primarily managed professional employees. 
Thus, based on examinations of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties and the staffing and 
organizational structure of the I I firm, the record does not establish her foreign employment in 
a managerial capacity. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record on appeal does not establish the Beneficiary's employment abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated her qualifications for the 
requested immigrant classification of multinational executive or manager. A petitioner bears the 
5 
Matter of R-&C-US Inc. 
burden of establishing eligibility for a requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
Here, the Petitioner did not meet that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-&C-US, Inc., ID# 6547895 (AAO Dec. 30, 2019) 
6