dismissed EB-1C Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-&C-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 10, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , a management consulting company, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as 
an associate partner 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 )( 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 the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity for at least 
one year in the three years preceding his entry to the United States to work for the Petitioner as a 
nonimmigrant. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity 
in which he oversaw the work of professional employees and managed an essential function. 
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 
1 The Director 's analysis in the denial decision focused solely on the Beneficiary 's employment abroad with the petitioning 
group's operations in India. However , the decision concluded with a statement that "the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial capacity." This statement was not consistent with the discussion 
that preceded it and therefore it is withdrawn. The Beneficiary's prospective employment capacity in the United States is 
not at issue in this matter. 
Matter of M-&C-, Inc. 
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). 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity that involved 
management of an essential function and the supervision and control of subordinate professional 
employees. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive 
capacity. 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to 
primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the 
beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, 
and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(3). 
On the other hand, the term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not 
primarily supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for 
managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If 
a petitioner claims that a beneficiary managed an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties 
performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that (1) 
the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; 
(3) the beneficiary primarily managed, as opposed to performed, the function; ( 4) the beneficiary acted 
at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and ( 5) 
the beneficiary exercised discretion over the function's day-to-day operations. Matter of G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
A. Procedural History 
In a supporting cover letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was employed by its Indian 
subsidiary "in the managerial role of Practice Specialist" from June 2008 until August 2012. However, 
in the same letter, the Petitioner clarified that the Beneficiary was hired by the foreign entity as a 
research analyst in June 2008, "advanced to the functional managerial position of Senior Research 
Analyst" in January 2011, and was promoted to the position of practice specialist in July 2012. 
Therefore, the only claimed managerial position the Beneficiary held for more than one year in the 
three years preceding his transfer to the United States in September 2012 was that of senior research 
analyst. 
The Petitioner explained that the firm's senior research analysts generally "possess a good 
understanding of industry trends and issues and have distinctive areas of expertise," noting that the 
Beneficiary "acted as 'thought-partner' for teams moving away from routine research requests and 
was involved with targeted business solving." The Petitioner stated that he "led both teams in a desk 
based research capacity and staffed members of a client service team," "made significant contributions 
2 
Matter of M-&C-, Inc. 
to PD initiatives and contributed to building successful knowledge teams with a distinctive service 
culture and community spirit." The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's primary responsibilities 
as a senior research analyst fell into the following categories: 
1. Client team support - Lead CSS teams to effectively shape requests by scoping and 
disaggregating problems using their own expertise in industry, function, or 
geography. SRAs use this knowledge base to help engagement teams understand 
industry trends and players and solve business problems. They organize, analyze, 
and synthesize the facts gathered after defining and refining a business problem. 
2. Knowledge Development - SRAs possess a broad understanding of the 
industry/economic trends and issues in their distinctive area of expertise. They 
leverage this knowledge base to develop fact packs, summary perspectives, and 
other research products to drive subsequent research and development of new 
materials and contribute to broader knowledge development and research 
initiatives. SRAs also lead the identification, review, and selection of information 
sources, research tools and external experts related to areas of their expertise. 
3. People and unit contributions - SRAs coach new team members and persons in 
areas of personal expertise, contributing to the professional growth of junior 
research colleagues. They also contribute to the success of the knowledge 
management team by building strong communities across various practices/offices 
as well as develop strong links with knowledge professionals in other units, 
especially in knowledge centers as well as with client support staff across the Firm. 
The Petitioner did not further develop its claim that a senior research analyst is a function manager 
position within the company, but instead proceeded to describe the practice specialist position that the 
Beneficiary assumed in July 2012, in which he "led research efforts in the Risk Practice," developed 
proprietary techniques" at the company's Knowledge Center in India, managed project teams of 
internal and external client team members, and directly and indirectly managed supervised research 
analysts, research analysts and junior analysts. As noted, the Beneficiary held this position for 
approximately two months prior to his transfer to the Petitioner's U.S. operations. 
The Petitioner also provided short descriptions of studies the Beneficiary "led" or "oversaw" for 
clients during his tenure abroad, but these brief overviews did not provide further insight into his 
specific tasks, and the Petitioner did not provide dates for the assignments. The Petitioner asserted 
that he "had control over and exercised wide latitude and discretionary decision-making authority" in 
managing the listed assignments, and managed "day-to-day activities performed by members of 
engagement teams reporting to him." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had "directly managed 
teams of 2-5 management consultants" with advanced degrees, but it provided only a general 
organizational chart for the practice specialist position. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that it provided a "broad and 
ambiguous" description of the Beneficiary's duties and requested a more detailed explanation of the 
specific daily tasks involved with the completion of each responsibility and the percentage of time 
3 
Matter of M-&C-, Inc. 
spent on each. The Director also requested a more detailed organizational chart and detailed 
information regarding the Beneficiary's subordinates and their job duties and educational levels. The 
Director advised the Petitioner that any function manager claim must state the specific function that 
the Beneficiary managed, explain how it was essential to the organization, and how the Beneficiary 
primarily exercised direction over the day-to-day operations of the function. Further, the Director 
advised the Petitioner that it must show how the Beneficiary acted at a senior level in the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed, and explain who performed the day-to-day duties 
of the function managed. 
In response, the Petitioner departed from its previous claim that the senior research analyst and practice 
specialist positions the Beneficiary held in India were in fact distinct positions and discussed them 
both together, stating that the Beneficiary's duties were "substantially the same" in both capacities. 
The Petitioner noted that both positions "manage a specialized function" within the company's 
structure and "are brought into specific client engagements in order to lead a team of professionals 
that assist with a particularly complex or novel issue." The Petitioner maintained that both positions 
involved: (1) managing an essential function in the form of project planning, project management, and 
resource deployment management; and (2) managing a subordinate staff of professional and 
managerial personnel, who relieved the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary: led teams of professionals who were responsible for 
"conducting strategic analysis, drawing conclusions, and making recommendations regarding 
complex business problems"; "led a discrete portion of the overall engagement" by "overseeing 
research, performing technical analyses, interpreting and summarizing data, and making 
recommendations"; managed "discrete parts of the project"; and performed analyses "within each 
work stream." 
In addition, the Petitioner provided another job duty breakdown that was intended to described the 
Beneficiary's duties abroad "in both a Senior Research Analyst role and a Practice Specialist role," 
which we have summarized below 
• 10% to supervising junior team members by directing daily work in terms of 
workstream direction, deliverables to be produced, next steps, and links with other 
work done by the rest of the engagement team; 
• 15% to directing an "expert team" by setting tasks and goals for subject matter 
experts, leading problem solving sessions with experts, reviewing their work, and 
deciding on presenting materials to clients; 
• 5% to organizing and coordinating workshops for clients by choosing experts, 
coordinating development of workshop materials, and managing workshop 
logistics with clients; 
• 10% to directing junior research analyst team members by assessing team needs for 
research support, overseeing production of the necessary materials, providing 
feedback and direction, and evaluating the overall team performance; 
• 15% to managing associate team/individual research analysts and knowledge 
specialists by identifying research needs, designing research requests, guiding and 
managing research analysts, and providing deadlines for deliverables; 
4 
Matter of M-&C-, Inc. 
• 35% to leading his own workstream, including the process (scheduling, organizing 
and planning the calendar), content (deciding, designing, and executing analyses to 
be produced), and people assigned to contribute, as well as managing the collection 
of client and industry data and performance of required analyses, syntheses of 
findings, and development of client recommendations; and 
• 10% to planning, overseeing and monitoring initiatives implementation by 
developing implementation plans, assigning tasks to client employees, discussing 
progress with client management, synthesizing progress reports, and providing 
recommendations to clients' executives. 
The Petitioner also provided separate organizational charts for both the practice specialist position and 
the senior research analyst position. The former shows an "Associate Partner" at the top tier of the 
organizational hierarchy, followed by an "Engagement Manager" at the second management tier. The 
Beneficiary is depicted as a practice specialist in the third tier, and the fourth tier includes the 
Beneficiary's subordinates, identified as a research analyst and a senior research analyst. Finally, a 
fifth tier included one junior research analyst reporting to the senior research analyst. The latter chart 
shows that that the Beneficiary, as a senior research analyst, reported to a different engagement 
manager, and directly supervised two research analysts, who each supervised one junior research 
analyst. 
In the denial decision, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary led 
projects, but determined that projects generally do not qualify as an essential function. The Director 
further noted that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
was employed at a senior level within with the foreign entity's hierarchy or with respect to a function, 
and emphasized that the Petitioner did not explain the role of the Beneficiary's superiors with respect 
to the functions or projects that he is claimed to have managed. The Director also addressed the 
personnel management element of the Petitioner's claim, finding that the Petitioner did not explain 
how the Beneficiary supervised and controlled the work of his claimed subordinates or establish that 
the Beneficiary had the authority to hire and fire subordinates or take other personnel actions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary managed the function of "project planning, 
project management, and resource deployment management," asserting that this function is essential 
to the organization. The Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary oversaw the work of professional 
subordinate employees and provides a new breakdown of his duties "as Senior Research Analyst and 
Practice Specialist." 
In this latest iteration of the Beneficiary's job duties, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary allocated 
his time as follows: 
• 50% of his time to "one-on-one coaching and overseeing of direct reports, 
managing each individual's tasks, and coordinating to ensure deliverables are 
timely"; 
• 10% of his time to "leading and managing daily team problem solving research 
knowledge development sessions with the whole team to analyze issues and come 
up with recommendations"; 
5 
Matter of M-&C-, Inc. 
• 30% to "leading client presentations, meetings, and discussions, including leading 
own work stream"; and 
• 10% to "overseeing the implementation of our research knowledge development 
findings for the client and directing initiatives implementation." 
B. Analysis 
We find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial capacity, either as a function manager or as a personnel manager, 
for at least one year in the three years preceding his entry to the United States as a nonimmigrant in 
September 2012. 
As a preliminary matter, although it appears that the Director accepted the Petitioner's claim in 
response to the RFE that the positions of senior research analyst and practice specialist were essentially 
the same position, the Petitioner did not make this claim at the time of its initial submission. Because 
the senior research analyst position was the only claimed managerial position the Beneficiary held in 
the relevant three year time period between September 2009 and September 2012, it is this position 
that we must examine in order to determine his eligibility. 
As noted, the Petitioner initially described the senior research analyst position separately from the 
practice specialist position. Notably, the initial senior research analyst description including a number 
of duties that were not included in the subsequent descriptions that also encompassed the "practice 
specialist" role. The Petitioner indicated that senior research analysts use their knowledge to define 
and refine business problems, synthesize and analyze facts, and "help engagement teams understand 
industry trends and players and solve business problems." The Petitioner also noted that the role 
involves developing research products such as "fact packs and summary perspectives," and selecting 
information sources tools and expertise. Finally, the Petitioner noted that senior research analyst is 
responsible to "coach new team members" and contribute to the professional growth of junior research 
colleagues, as well as build communities with "client support staff" 
There was no indication, based on this description, that a senior research analyst typically spends 50% 
of their time on oversight and management of direct reports, 30% of their time leading client 
presentations and meetings, or any time directing "initiatives implementation" for clients, as the 
Petitioner now claims on appeal. Rather, the position was described as an expert research position 
with mentoring responsibilities over new team members, which is one step higher than the research 
analyst position for which the Beneficiary appears to have been hired as a new graduate in 2008. 
While the initial description suggested that the senior research analyst position had some team 
leadership responsibilities, it also indicated that it involves directly performing research and analysis 
functions alongside other research analysts. 
Further, the initial description provided for the "practice specialist" pos1t10n, by contrast, was 
significantly more focused on team management for multiple projects on a global basis, and mentions 
the client-facing responsibilities that appeared in later versions of the "combined" job description. 
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner has not adequately supported its claim that the Beneficiary's 
duties as a senior research analyst were in fact the same duties he performed as a practice specialist. 
6 
Matter of M-&C-, Inc. 
The Petitioner has not resolved this ambiguity in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The 
Petitioner has submitted three different position descriptions, but as these are not internally consistent, 
they are insufficient to meet its burden to describe the Beneficiary's duties abroad. The record does 
not contain objective evidence, such as official position descriptions from the company's human 
resources department or sample job announcements for the two roles the Beneficiary held 
demonstrating that they have substantially the same duties, requirements, and level of responsibility 
within the company's hierarchy. As such, we find that the record lacks a detailed description of the 
senior research analyst position. 
Nevertheless, we agree with the Director's determination that the combined "senior research analyst 
and practice specialist" position descriptions do not establish the Beneficiary's eligibility as a 
multinational manager. 
First, although the Petitioner repeatedly uses the phrase "project planning, project management, and 
resource deployment management" to describe the essential function the Beneficiary managed, this 
phrase does not describe the function with sufficient specificity. See Matter of G- Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2017-05. While these activities convey a general sense of the Beneficiary's broad job 
responsibilities, they do not represent a "clearly defined activity" in a management consulting 
organization, where presumably many of the company's consultants plan and manage projects for the 
company's clients. Id. Further, although management consulting as a whole may be at the core of 
this management consulting firm, it is insufficient to state that each individual client engagement or 
project, of which there are likely many, given the nature of the Petitioner's business, is an essential 
function of the organization. In fact, the Petitioner indicated in response to the RFE that the 
Beneficiary's authority was limited to "discrete parts" of a given project or engagement. Based on the 
submitted evidence, all employees in the client support organization - except for those with 'junior" 
in their job titles - have some mentoring or leadership responsibilities and a certain degree of 
independence over their own research activities or "work stream" within a given project or 
engagement. They cannot all be considered to be managing the same project, engagement or 
"function" at a senior level. As the Petitioner has not adequately defined the function the Beneficiary 
was claimed to manage as a senior research analyst, we need not address the other element of this 
criterion, which asks the Petitioner to establish that the function managed was essential, or core to the 
organization. 
Further, despite claiming that the Beneficiary functioned at a senior level within the organization, the 
Petitioner provided an organizational chart that shows two levels of management above the 
Beneficiary, whose position was only senior with respect to the employees he was claimed to oversee. 
As the Petitioner has not provided a more expansive organizational chart of the broader organization, 
we cannot determine the Beneficiary's level of seniority within the organization as a whole or with 
respect to any given client engagement. Id. at 6. The Petitioner has not provided evidence 
demonstrating that the Beneficiary's position was at a senior level either within the organization or 
with respect to the function he is claimed to have managed. 
Lastly, the Petitioner provided position descriptions in response to the RFE and on appeal which 
indicate that the Beneficiary spent at least half of his time on managing personnel, rather than 
7 
Matter of M-&C-, Inc. 
managing a function. Accordingly, we will also address the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary 
oversees the work of subordinates who are professional employees. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of 
the Act. A beneficiary who is claimed to directly supervise other employees must also have the 
authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel 
actions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). Although the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary oversaw 
the work of a professional team of employees and had discretion over their work assignments, it has 
neither stated nor provided evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary had authority to hire and fire 
employees who were considered to be his subordinates or to take or recommend other personnel 
actions. Therefore, the record does not support a finding that the Beneficiary was employed in a 
managerial capacity based on his supervision of professional personnel. 
In light of the deficiencies described above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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 M-&C-, Inc., ID# 5946861 (AAO Sept. 10, 2019) 
8