dismissed EB-1C Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 11199033 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 30, 2020 
Form I-140C, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, an international management consulting firm, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as a senior fellow in the United States 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. § l 153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to 
permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad prior to his 
entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant. In addition, the Director determined that the record 
does not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in 
the United States. 
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. 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 )(1 )(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 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) . 
Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(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. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAP A CITY 
The primary issue that we will address on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that the 
Beneficiary acted in a managerial capacity abroad. The Petitioner asserted in response to the 
Director's notice of intent to deny (NOID) that the Beneficiary's duties abroad involved both 
functional management responsibilities and personnel management responsibilities. 1 The Director 
denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial capacity abroad. In analyzing the Beneficiary's position descriptions, the 
Director observed that an individual cannot primarily perform the duties of a personnel manager and 
a functional manager. On appeal, while acknowledging that the Beneficiary had duties related to a 
function manager, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary served primarily as a personnel manager 
abroad. Given the Petitioner's assertions that the Beneficiary served as both a personnel manager and 
a function manager abroad, we will review both capacities below. 
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 
1 As set forth above, 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. Function managers are primarily responsible for 
managing an essential function within the organization. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed 
in an executive capacity abroad. 
2 
positions abroad meet all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that they are qualifying 
managerial positions. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the positions abroad meet all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties, 
as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a given beneficiary's duties were 
primarily managerial, we consider the description of the job duties, the company'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, and any other 
factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
As noted above, we must determine whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary's 
positions abroad meet all elements of the statutory definition of "managerial capacity" at section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. We conclude that the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's role 
abroad meets the requirements of sections 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the Act. 2 
A. Dates of Employment Abroad 
We will initially address the conflicting information in the record regarding the Beneficiary's 
employment with the qualifying organization abroad. In a supporting letter dated April 5, 2019, 
submitted with the petition, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was employed with its 
subsidiary in I l India "from "October 1, 2014 to March 31, 2017 in a managerial capacity, 
serving in the roles of Analyst and Senior Analyst." Later in that letter, it clarified that the Beneficiary 
joined its office inl hn October 2014 to serve in the managerial position of Analyst" with its 
healthcare analytics and delivery team and that in September 2015, "he advanced to the managerial 
role of Senior Analyst." It subsequently asserted in the same letter that from "October 2014 to May 
2016, [ the Beneficiary] held the managerial position of Analyst" and that in July 2016, [ the 
Beneficiary] advanced to the managerial role of Senior Analyst." It asserted that he was transferred 
to the United States in L-1 nonimmigrant status in April 201 7. 3 Thus, as noted in the Director's 
subsequent NOID, the information regarding his employment abroad contains inconsistencies 
regarding the timeline and roles that the Beneficiary held with the foreign entity. 4 The Director also 
stated that since the letter focuses on the Beneficiary's role as senior analyst and he did not serve in 
that role for at least one year prior to his entry into the United States, the record does not establish that 
he worked in a managerial capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding his entry as a 
nonimmigrant. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). 
2 Because the record must establish that he met all four of the requirements and we have determined that he failed to meet 
more than one of them, we do not need to analyze whether he met the remaining requirements and therefore reserve them 
in the event of future proceedings. 
3 According to government records, the Beneficiary was granted L-1 nonimmigrant status in 2014 based on a blanket 
petition previously approved for the Petitioner in 2013, and he made four separate trips to the United States in L-1 status 
between April 2015 and November 2016. The Petitioner did not mention these U.S. assignments when describing the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad with the foreign entity. Records indicate that his next arrival in L-1 status occurred on 
April 5, 2017. 
4 The Petitioner must resolve the discrepancies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho. 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
3 
In its NOID response, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary joined its office inl I India on 
June 3, 2013, to serve in the role ofresearch analyst. It stated that he "commenced his managerial role 
on October 1, 2014, initially as an Analyst where he served as a member of the organization's c=J I !Analytics and Delivery Team, which forms part of itsl I I f' It further stated that he served "in various managerial roles" within this 
practice group, including a "title change to Technology Analyst" on April 1, 2015; 5 to analyst on 
September 1, 2015; and to senior analyst on July 1, 2016. It reiterated that the Beneficiary was 
transferred to the United States in L- lA nonimmigrant status on April 1, 2017. It did not provide any 
independent, objective evidence to support these assertions. 
Given the conflicting information regarding the Beneficiary's employment with the foreign subsidiary, 
and the lack of supporting documentation in the record, the Beneficiary's work history and eligibility 
for this immigrant classification are not clear. In any future filings, the Petitioner must resolve the 
discrepancies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
B. Personnel Manager 
With regard to the claimed role of personnel manager, the record does not establish that the 
Beneficiary's role abroad involved supervision of subordinate supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees as required by section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, or that he had the authority to hire, fire, 
or recommend those and other personnel actions as required by section 101(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
The Petitioner is a large international management consulting firm. In its supporting letter submitted 
with the petition, the Petitioner listed different duties for the Beneficiary's roles of analyst and senior 
analyst, but asserted that both positions were managerial. The duties for the position of analyst 
included the oversight of data analysis in I I analytics, but they did not include the supervision 
of any employees or the authority to hire, fire, or recommend personnel actions for any subordinates. 
The duties for the position of senior analyst included client engagement work, client development, 
knowledge creation and transfer, and building business; however, they did not include tasks related to 
the supervision of any employees or the authority to hire, fire, or recommend personnel actions for 
any subordinates. Despite the lack of supervisory tasks, the Petitioner asserted that the position of 
senior analyst "is a role that includes the direct or indirect management of several levels of professional 
employees." 
In the supporting letter, the Petitioner included a "typical organizational chart for the types of 
assignments that [ the Beneficiary] led and the professional employees under [his] supervision" in the 
I !office. The chart shows the Beneficiary as a senior analyst who oversaw a business analyst, 
a senior data engineer, and a data scientist. The chart demonstrates that the Beneficiary was overseen 
by a chief actuary; the business analyst oversaw a junior analyst; and the senior data engineer oversaw 
a data engineer. The Petitioner asserted that all business analysts are required to possess a minimum 
of a bachelor's degree in a related field, but it did not indicate that any of the other direct or indirect 
subordinates were required to possess a minimum of a bachelor's degree. Other than the Beneficiary, 
5 The reason for this "title change" is not clear, and it is not clear if the change in job title included any corresponding 
change in duties. 
4 
no individual names are listed on the chart, and the record does not identify the names or educational 
qualifications of any of the Beneficiary's purported subordinates. The Petitioner did not initially 
submit an organizational chart showing the Beneficiary's role as an analyst within the hierarchy of the 
foreign organization. 
In the NOID, the Director stated that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets any of 
the four requirements of section 101(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. He noted that the organizational 
chart submitted by the Petitioner does not contain any identifying information or a larger overview of 
the organization. He indicated that the positions of analyst and senior analyst do not "carry the 
implication" that they are managers of direct subordinates. 
In its NOID response, the Petitioner stated that as a management consulting firm, it assists clients in 
solving major problems, and that its employees work in large-scale teams to study the clients' 
problems and advise on how to execute major organizational changes. It asserted that analysts and 
senior analysts "perform essentially the same core duties, although Senior Analysts operate at a higher 
level within our organizational hierarchy." This conflicts with its original job descriptions which 
detailed different duties for the two positions. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 
591-92. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient 
petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of lzwnmi, 22 l&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998). It further asserted in its NOID response that analysts and senior analysts manage a 
specialized function within the organization's structure, and that the Beneficiary's duties abroad 
involved both functional management responsibilities and personnel management responsibilities. 
With regard to the Beneficiary's personnel management duties, it asserted that he "oversaw a team of 
professional employees on the day-to-day project work that they executed" and that the Beneficiary's 
"team size varied depending upon the size and complexity of the project." The revised combined 
duties for the positions of analyst and senior analyst included one-on-one coaching and overseeing of 
direct reports. It asserted that the Beneficiary's subordinates relieved him of performing any and all 
non-qualifying tasks, leaving him free to focus on broader strategic planning. It submitted another 
organizational chart showing the Beneficiary as an analyst who oversaw a business analyst, a senior 
data engineer, and a data engineer. He was overseen by an engagement manager who, in tum was 
supervised by as associate partner. It also provided job descriptions for the employees purportedly 
under the Beneficiary's supervision abroad. The job descriptions indicate that all of the subordinate 
positions require a bachelor's degree. However, other than the Beneficiary, no individual names are 
listed on the chart, and the record does not identify the names or specific educational qualifications of 
any of the Beneficiary's purported subordinates. The Petitioner asserted that "as a matter of policy" 
it does not provide personal information about "current or former employees that are unassociated 
with any immigration filing with USCIS," but it confirms "that all individuals represented on the 
organizational chart possesses at least a Bachelor's degree in a field related to their job duties." The 
burden of proof is on the Petitioner in the current matter. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. A 
petitioner's unsupported statements are of limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its 
burden of proof The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
5 
In his denial decision, the Director stated that the Petitioner did not clarify whether the Beneficiary 
primarily served as a function manager or personnel manager abroad, and he determined that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets any of the four requirements of section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. He stated that the Petitioner did not identify any actual employees 
managed by the Beneficiary or provide evidence of their professional credentials. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary supervised subordinate professionals in his capacity abroad, and 
claims that he was a primarily a personnel manager. It submits a duty description for the Beneficiary 
on appeal that breaks down some of the previously submitted duties into additional categories; 
however, none of the duties indicate that he had the authority to hire, fire, or other personnel actions 
for any subordinates. 
The record contains two foreign organizational charts showing that the Beneficiary oversaw 
subordinates in his positions abroad. As previously discussed, there is no supporting evidence to 
substantiate that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial role with personnel authority over subordinate 
professionals, managers, or supervisors. The submitted evidence indicates that it is more likely that 
the Beneficiary was in a more junior position as an analyst and then was promoted to a senior analyst 
less than one year before he was transferred to the United States. 
Even if the Beneficiary supervised teams abroad, his duty description states that he coached them and 
gave feedback regarding their professional development. However, this does not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary had the authority to hire or fire these claimed subordinates, recommend these actions, or 
take other personnel actions with respect to them. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). The Petitioner submits no 
supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's asserted personnel authority over 
subordinate supervisors, managers, or professionals abroad. 
Furthermore, it is also noteworthy that the Petitioner did not submit specific evidence to demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates were professionals, if indeed his supervisory authority had 
been established. The Petitioner did not identify any of the Beneficiary's subordinates by name, nor 
did it provide evidence to demonstrate that any of them held bachelor's degrees. 6 There is no 
supporting documentation to demonstrate that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial capacity in 
relation to these claimed subordinates. Therefore, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence 
to establish that the Beneficiary acted as a personnel manager abroad. 
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 
position abroad meets all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial 
position. For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would 
supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees as required 
by section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Further, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
6 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"). Section I0l(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." 
6 
that he had the authority to hire, fire, or recommend those and other personnel actions as required by 
section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
C. Function Manager 
The record also does not establish that the Beneficiary's role abroad involved managing an essential 
function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization as required by 
section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, or that he functioned at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed as required by section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary acted as a function 
manager abroad. The Petitioner has not clearly defined the Beneficiary's function. For instance, the 
Petitioner generally stated that the Beneficiary acted as an analyst and senior analyst within the foreign 
employer's healthcare analytics and delivery department, and that he was assigned to different teams 
providing services to various clients. However, the nature of this function is not clear; for instance, 
although healthcare analytics and delivery could be a function itself: it is not sufficiently established 
that each team within this function providing diverse services to various clients at different times 
represents a defined function. Further, as we have discussed, the record conflicts as to the 
Beneficiary's job history abroad, and there is insufficient supporting evidence to substantiate the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managing a function. As such, even 
if the Petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary acted within a defined function, it has not 
demonstrated with sufficient evidence that he was directing this function at a senior level. The two 
foreign organizational charts in the record reflect that as an analyst, the Beneficiary reported to an 
engagement manager who, in turn was supervised by as associate partner; and that as senior analyst, 
the Beneficiary reported to an actuary. The roles of the supervisory engagement manager, associate 
partner, and actuary are not defined in the record. Therefore, although the Petitioner asserts that the 
Beneficiary served a senior manager in his roles as analyst and senior analyst, the record does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary acted at a senior level within his claimed function abroad. The 
Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's role abroad involved 
managing an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization as required by section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, or that he functioned at a senior level 
within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed as required by section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
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. Because the record does not establish 
that the positions of analyst and senior analyst abroad meet all four of these elements, we cannot 
conclude that either position is a qualifying managerial position. 
D. Duties 
As the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets all of the four requirements of section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act, we will not conduct a full analysis of the remaining evidence related 
7 
to the Beneficiary's positions abroad. However, we note that the submitted job descriptions do not 
support a finding that his duties were primarily managerial in nature. The Petitioner has submitted 
duty descriptions that conflict and that do not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary primarily 
devoted his time to qualifying managerial duties abroad. As detailed above, the Petitioner initially 
indicated that the Beneficiary's roles as analyst and senior analyst were different. The duties for the 
position of analyst included the oversight of data analysis in healthcare analytics, while the duties for 
the position of senior analyst included client engagement work, client development, knowledge 
creation and transfer, and building business. The Petitioner did not indicate that the position of analyst 
involved supervision of subordinates, but it stated that the senior analyst position "is a role that 
includes the direct or indirect management of several levels of professional employees." 
However, in response to the NOID, it asserted that analysts and senior analysts "perform essentially 
the same core duties, although Senior Analysts operate at a higher level within our organizational 
hierarchy." It described the core combined duties for both jobs and the percentages of time devoted 
to the duties. However, none of the provided duty descriptions sufficiently demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary primarily devoted his time to qualifying managerial duties abroad. For instance, despite 
asserting that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial role abroad for over two years, there is no 
supporting documentation to substantiate his delegation of duties and his claimed management of 
teams described in his duty description. Further, the Beneficiary's duties are vague and could apply 
generally to any business consultant. For example, the Petitioner did not detail or document the 
"complex problems facing clients in various sectors" that the Beneficiary solved through his teams; 
"data development solutions" that he identified; "recommendations for change" that he developed; 
"feedback to team members" that he provided; contributions to the "formal evaluation process" that 
he made; "significant benchmarking projects" that he oversaw; or "implementation plans" that he led. 
Likewise, the Petitioner did not specifically articulate or submit supporting evidence to substantiate 
the operational and management issues the Beneficiary addressed through his asserted teams, 
personnel decisions he made, or coaching he provided to his subordinates. 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 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). 
Further, there is no supporting evidence that the Beneficiary was primarily delegating the operational 
aspects of his duties, such as data development for clients, developing analytical models and 
algorithms for clients, developing solutions and recommendations for clients, and formulating final 
presentations. Although the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary led these activities through 
subordinate teams, there is no supporting evidence to substantiate this assertion. An employee who 
"primarily" performs the tasks necessary to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" 
employed in a managerial capacity. See, e.g., section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act (requiring that one 
"primarily" perform the enumerated managerial duties); Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N 
Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
By statute, eligibility for classification as a multinational manager requires that the duties of a foreign 
position be "primarily" managerial in nature. Sections 101 (A)( 44 )(A) of the Act. The foreign position 
must meet all elements of the statutory definition of managerial capacity and the Beneficiary must 
have performed primarily managerial duties. Here, the Petitioner did not meet that burden. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
8 
III. RESERVED ISSUE 
As noted, the Director also determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would 
be employed in a managerial capacity in the United States. However, because the Beneficiary's lack 
of qualifying managerial employment abroad is dispositive in this case, we need not reach this issue 
and therefore reserve it. See 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9