dismissed EB-1C Case: It And Engineering Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-A- , INC . 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 18, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , an IT and engineering services company, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary 
as its operations director 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 )( 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary has been employed by a qualifying entity outside the 
United States in a managerial capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition , and (2) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States primarily in a managerial 
capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Beneficiary was employed 
by a qualifying entity outside the United States in a managerial capacity for at least one year in the 
relevant three year period , and that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States primarily 
in a managerial capacity . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 1-140, 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 
Matter of H-A-, Inc. 
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). 
II. ONE YEAR OF MANAGERIAL EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The first issue to be addressed in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
has been employed by a qualifying entity outside the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity for at least one year in the three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). In the multinational executive or manager immigrant context, if a 
beneficiary entered the United States to work for a qualifying entity as a nonimmigrant, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will reach back three years from the date of his or her 
admission to determine whether he or she had the requisite one year of employment. Matter of S-P­
Inc., Adopted Decision 2018-01 (AAO Mar. 19, 2018); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B). 
In a supporting letter submitted with the petition, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary was "first 
employed b~ I in India from July 2007 to July 2015 as a General Manager," at 
which time the Beneficiary was transferred to the United States to work for the Petitioner, a qualifying 
entity, in L-lA nonimmigrant status. The letter lists his duties as general manager for the entire eight­
year period, during which time the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary was
1 
"res] onsible for all 
Programs executed by Enterprise Transformation Service Business Unit of covering Life 
Sciences, Manufacturing, and Hi-Tech Industries customers." It states that during his eight-year 
tenure as general manager, he directly supervised seven professionals, including six group project 
managers and one solutions architect, and he indirectly managed 350 professionals. It submitted an 
organizational chart for the foreign entity showing the Beneficiary in the role of general manager. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a letter dated 
February 19, 2019, from the foreign entity which "describes the extensive managerial experience that 
[the Beneficiary] gained through his managerial role withinD India as a General Manager." The 
letter states that the Beneficiary commenced his employment with the foreign entity in July 2007 in 
the position of senior project manager; that he was promoted to group project manager in 2008; that 
he was promoted to associate general manager in 2010; that he was promoted to deputy general 
manager in 2011; and that he was promoted to general manager in 2014 and continued in that role 
until his transfer to the United States in July 2015. The letter describes the Beneficiary's duties and 
responsibilities as general manager, and describes his direct oversight of seven professionals, 
including six group project managers and one solutions architect, and his indirect oversight of 306 
professionals. The entire nine-page letter is devoted to the Beneficiary's position as general manager, 
with the exception of one section. That section states that "[ w ]hile serving in his managerial roles in 
India, most recently in the role of General Manager from July of 2014 to July of 2015, [the 
Beneficiary's] primary day-to-day responsibilities included the following" and listed employee 
management (25%); program/project management for all RDU projects (35%); finance/budget/cost 
management (20% ); and organizational delivery excellence & initiatives (20% ). In response to the 
RFE, it did not submit new organizational charts for the foreign entity showing the Beneficiary's 
purported positions prior to his role as general manager. 
2 
Matter of H-A-, Inc. 
A promotion letter from the foreign entity submitted in response to the RFE shows that the Beneficiary 
was promoted to general manager on October 2, 2014. The letter references "Annexure A" which 
purportedly details the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's employment. However, Annexure 
A was not submitted to the record in this case. The Beneficiary's pay statements from the foreign 
entity show that his promotion from deputy general manager to general manager did not occur until 
December 1, 2014. 1 Thus, in his denial decision, the Director determined that the Beneficiary was not 
employed by the foreign entity in the claimed managerial position of general manager for at least one 
year in the relevant three year period. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's promotion from deputy general manager to 
general manager "does not in any way change the job duties of [the Beneficiary]." It asserts that the 
promotion involved a job title change and salary increase, but the Beneficiary performed the same 
managerial duties in both positions. In support of its assertion, it points to the previously described 
section of the February 19, 2019, letter from the foreign entity detailing the duties of the Beneficiary's 
"managerial roles in India." Thus, it claims that the foreign entity employed the Beneficiary as a 
manager for at least one year in the relevant three year period based on his positions as deputy general 
manager from October 1, 2011, to October 1, 2014, and his position as general manager from October 
2, 2014, to July 2015. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed 
by the foreign entity in a managerial capacity for at least one year in the relevant three year period 
preceding the Beneficiary's transfer to the United States in July 2015. Initially, the Petitioner claimed 
that the Beneficiary was employed byl I in India from July 2007 to July 2015 
as a general manager. Subsequently, in response to the RFE, it claimed that the Beneficiary served in 
the role of general manager of the foreign entity from July 2014 to July 2015, and that prior to that 
role, he served as deputy general manager, associate general manager, group project manager, and 
senior project manager. The purpose of the RFE is to elicit farther information that clarifies whether 
eligibility for the benefit sought has been established. 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b )(8). When responding to an 
RFE, a petitioner cannot make material changes to the petition in an effort to make a deficient petition 
conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1998). If significant changes are made to the initial request for approval, a petitioner must file a new 
petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. The 
information provided by the Petitioner in its response to the Director's RFE changed the details of the 
Beneficiary's role abroad with the foreign entity. On appeal, it again changed the details of the 
Beneficiary's role abroad by asserting that the Beneficiary served as general manager of the foreign 
entity from October 2, 2014, to July 2015 (not from July 2007 to July 2015 as initially claimed, or 
from July 2014 to July 2015 as claimed in response to the RFE), and that his duties as general manager 
and deputy general manager were the same. 2 
1 The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing 
to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
2 We note that the Beneficiary filed an L-1 nonimmigrant visa application in 2015 on which he stated that he served as 
deputy general manager of the foreign entity from October 1, 2011, to October 1, 2014. However, on a subsequent L-1 
nonimmigrant visa application filed in 2019, he stated that he served as general manager of the foreign entity rrom July 
22, 2007, to July 15, 2015. See Matter of Ho, 19 T&N Dec. at 591-92. Since the Petitioner has not previously been notified 
of this derogatory information and given a chance to respond, it does not serve as a basis for this denial. However, the 
3 
Matter of H-A-, Inc. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not submit new organizational charts for the foreign entity showing the 
Beneficiary's purported positions prior to his role as general manager. The organizational chart 
originally submitted does not include a deputy general manager or associate general manager, so it is 
not clear where the Beneficiary fit within the organizational hierarchy in those prior roles. According 
to the chart submitted, those positions do not exist. 
A few errors or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of a foreign national or 
an employer seeking immigration benefits. See Spencer Enters. Inc. v. U.S., 345 F.3d 683, 694 (9th 
Cir. 2003). However, anytime a petition includes numerous discrepancies, and a petitioner fails to 
resolve those errors and discrepancies after USCIS provides an opportunity to do so, those 
inconsistencies will raise serious concerns about the veracity of a petitioner's assertions. Doubt cast 
on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). In 
this case, the discrepancies regarding the Beneficiary's employment abroad lead us to conclude that 
the evidence submitted regarding that employment is not credible. 3 As the record is presently 
constituted, it does not demonstrate that the positions the Beneficiary claims to have held prior to his 
position as general manager, on which the Petitioner is now relying, were in a qualifying capacity. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed outside the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the relevant three year period. The 
petition cannot be approved for this reason. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director determined that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in 
the United States in a managerial capacity. 4 However, because the Beneficiary's lack of one year of 
qualifying employment abroad is dispositive in this case, we need not reach the issue of the 
Beneficiary's U.S. employment in a managerial capacity and therefore reserve it. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H-A-, Inc., ID# 6082173 (AAO Sept. 18, 2019) 
Petitioner must address this derogatory information in any future filings in this matter. Additionally, on his adjustment of 
status application, the Beneficiary stated that he worked for the foreign entity from July 23, 2007, to July 18, 2015, as a 
general manager. He did not list his roles as senior project manager, group project manager, associate general manager, 
or deputy general manager. Id. 
3 The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
4 The Petitioner did not claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in an executive capacity. 
4