dismissed EB-1C Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7304260 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 31, 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 analytics 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. § 1153(b)(l)(C) . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was be 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 Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary acted as a personnel manager overseeing 
professional subordinates abroad and as a function manager overseeing an essential function of the 
foreign employer. The Petitioner further contends that the Beneficiary also acts in these capacities 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. Because 
of the dispositive effect of the above finding of ineligibility; namely, our affirmation of the Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial capacity in 
his former position abroad, we decline to address whether he would act in this capacity in the United 
States. 
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 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. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAP A CITY 
The sole issue we will address is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary acted in a 
managerial or executive capacity abroad. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was 
employed in an executive capacity abroad. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the 
Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity abroad. 
"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 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) requires the Petitioner to submit a statement that clearly 
describes the duties performed by the Beneficiary abroad. Beyond the required description of the 
foreign job duties, we review the totality of the evidence when examining the claimed managerial 
capacity of a beneficiary abroad, including the foreign employer's organizational structure, the duties 
of a beneficiary's subordinate employees abroad, the presence of other employees to relieve a 
beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the foreign business, and any other 
factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business abroad. 
Accordingly, our analysis of this issue will focus on the Beneficiary's duties as well as the foreign 
employer's business activities and staffing levels. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary performed certain high-level responsibilities abroad 
consistent with the statutory definitions of managerial capacity. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 
F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). In addition, the Petitioner must prove that the 
Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial, as opposed to ordinary operational activities 
alongside the foreign employer's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 
(9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner is a large international management consulting company and it indicated that it has a 
knowledge center based with the foreign employer focused on specialized client delivery capabilities, 
including "a benchmark operations center, data-analytics solutions, and a fully equipped onsite design 
lab." The Petitioner indicated that while working for the foreign employer the Beneficiary was "a core 
2 
member of [the company's]~-------------' specializing in advanced credit risk 
modeling for banks and corporations." It also stated that the~ is "a specialized client service 
capability designed to deliver specific parts of a client engagement." While assigned within this 
foreign employer function, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial position 
as a research analyst from December 2014 until January 2017, when he entered the United States as 
an L-lA nonimmigrant. In this position, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "took a leading role 
directing client teams on solving business problems related to Risk Management," was "folly in charge 
of completing targeted quantitative analysis," and "building components of advanced models." 
In a support letter provided with the petition, the Petitioner listed some of the following duties for the 
Beneficiary: 
• Led the process of disaggregating and structuring complex business problems, 
developed potential solutions, 
• Coordinated and led a team to apply advanced analytic and quantitative tools, statistical 
modeling techniques, and data mining procedures, 
• Took a leading role in setting up data sets and databases, 
• Oversaw the development of components of statistical models writing and developing 
scripts, 
• Managed the integration of solution components developed by other members of the 
team, 
• Led the process of data integration between the foreign employer and the client, 
• Kept abreast of analytic best practices, 
• Coached new team members, 
• In charge of management and delivery of professional development to junior members 
of the research team, 
• Led processes of building and delivering training and coaching sessions, 
• Provided information and education to professional consulting teams, 
• Accepted incoming research requests from professional consulting teams and assigned 
according to skill level and current workload, and 
• Set and oversaw deadlines and turnaround times and acted as a first alert contact to 
discuss requests that could not be handled by junior members of the team. 
Later, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided another foreign 
duty description for the Beneficiary, including the following tasks: 
• Led teams of professional analysts who would follow his directives in connection with 
resolving complex business problems for clients (25%), 
• Directed, planned and implemented the approach, objectives and work plan for the entire 
engagement. Tasked with developing communication strategies for his subordinates 
when engaging with clients. Strategized solutions to complex client operational and 
management issues and formulated a plan for execution (25%), 
• Synthesized the work completed by subordinate analysts into a set of findings or 
recommendations and structure the overall final written and oral presentation to the 
client (20% ), 
3 
• Conferred with clients to set the overall strategic direction of the consulting engagement 
and developed recommendations for change, in some cases, a large scale revamp of the 
client's organizational structure. Understood the client problem on a high-level and 
devised large scale sales strategy plans for analyzing the issue and leading the team 
towards executing the plan (20% ), and 
• Provided leadership to team, coaching to analysts and feedback to partners on analysts' 
professional development (10% ). 
The Petitioner has submitted a foreign duty description that does not 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 from December 2014 to January 201 7, 
there is no supporting documentation to substantiate his delegation of duties and his claimed 
management of teams described in his duty description. In fact, the Beneficiary's duties are vague 
and could apply to a project management employee acting in any industry. For instance, the Petitioner 
did not detail or document the complex client business problems the Beneficiary solved through his 
teams, objectives he set on various projects, work plans he formulated, or communication strategies 
he disseminated to his subordinates. 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, budgetary and personnel decisions he made, research requests he delegated 
to team members, deadlines he set, or coaching and training he provided to his subordinates. 
This lack of detail and documentation is particularly notable since the Petitioner asserts that the 
Beneficiary acted in his asserted managerial capacity abroad for approximately two years. 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 of reiterating the regulations. F edin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In contrast, the Beneficiary's duty descriptions indicate his substantial involvement in non-qualifying 
operational tasks through his provision of professional services directly to the foreign employer's 
clients. For example, the Petitioner explained the Beneficiary's involvement in handling research 
requests, "providing client-ready insights and presentation material," and "completing targeted 
quantitative analyses and building components of advanced models .. .including prospecting, 
underwriting, portfolio monitoring, pricing, asset evaluation and loss mitigation." Further, there is 
little supporting evidence that the Beneficiary was primarily delegating the operational aspects of his 
duties, such as setting up data sets and databases for clients, developing statistical models for clients, 
integrating solution components, remedying research requests, developing solutions and 
recommendations for clients, and formulating final written and oral presentations. In fact, the 
Petitioner stated several times on the record that "the primary job responsibilities for Research 
Analysts fall into two categories: (1) client service team support and (2) knowledge development." 
This statement does not indicate that the Beneficiary's position primarily involved managerial tasks, 
but suggests that he may have devoted a majority of his time to providing services directly to clients. 
Although the Petitioner regularly contends that the Beneficiary led these activities through subordinate 
teams, there is no supporting evidence to substantiate this assertion. 
Whether the Beneficiary was a managerial employee overseas turns on whether the Petitioner has 
sustained its burden of proving that his duties were "primarily" managerial. See sections 
4 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Here, the Petitioner does not document what proportion of the Beneficiary's 
duties were managerial functions abroad and what proportion were non-qualifying. The Petitioner 
lists the Beneficiary's foreign duties as including both managerial tasks and administrative or 
operational tasks, but does not quantify the time he spent on these different duties. For this reason, 
we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary primarily performed the duties of a manager abroad. 
See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
The fact that the Beneficiary managed or directed business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as a multinational manager. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that 
the duties of a foreign position be "primarily" managerial in nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(A) of the 
Act. Even though the Beneficiary may have exercised discretion over some of the foreign employer's 
day-to-day operations and possessed the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary 
decision-making, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his foreign duties 
were primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing and Operations 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual was acting in a managerial 
capacity, the reasonable needs of the organization are taken into account in light of the overall purpose 
and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary supervised subordinate professionals in his capacity abroad, 
and claims he was a personnel manager. 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. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute 
plainly states that 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." Id. 
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. 
§ 204.5(j)(2). 
First, it is noteworthy that the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary worked as a research analyst abroad 
from 2014 until his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant in January 2017. However, the 
Petitioner submitted a generic organizational chart in support of the petition reflecting that the 
Beneficiary acted as a "Senior Research Analyst" based in the company's knowledge center in India. 
This chart reflected that the Beneficiary oversaw subordinate analysts supervising junior analysts and 
visual graphics designers. The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary was assigned to different 
client projects in his managerial role overseeing project teams. Yet, elsewhere it stated that the 
Beneficiary had not been promoted to this senior position until 2017 when he transferred to the United 
States. In addition, the Petitioner submitted duty descriptions for the subordinate "analysts," the role 
the Beneficiary was said to work in abroad, which indicated their primary involvement in non­
qualifying operational tasks such as helping "consulting teams fill in gaps in their fact base," 
"develop[ing] and prov[ing] or disprove[ing] hypotheses," "analyz[ing] industry trends," and 
"manag[ing] proprietary tools." The duty descriptions provided for the analysts, or research analysts, 
did not reflect supervisory authority or the responsibility for overseeing teams. 
5 
Later, in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided a conflicting foreign organizational 
chart reflecting that the Beneficiary acted as a research analyst supervising a junior data analyst and a 
presentation specialist, both identified by name. This chart materially conflicts with the previously 
submitted organizational chart. Further, as previously discussed, there is no supporting evidence to 
substantiate that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial role with personnel authority over subordinate 
professionals or supervisors. The submitted evidence indicates that it is more likely that the 
Beneficiary was in a more junior position as a research analyst and then was promoted to a senior 
research analyst when transferred to the United States in 2017, as the Petitioner describes. 
Even if the Beneficiary supervised teams abroad, his duty description states that he coached them and 
gave feedback to the foreign employer's partners 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(i)(2). The Petitioner submits no supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's 
asserted personnel authority over subordinate supervisors 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. For instance, in the foreign organizational chart submitted in response to the RFE, 
the Petitioner provided two asserted subordinates to the Beneficiary identified by name, specifically a 
junior data analyst and a presentation specialist. However, the Petitioner did not provide specific duty 
descriptions for these claimed subordinates nor evidence to demonstrate that they held bachelor's 
degrees. 1 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 also asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary qualified as a function manager abroad. The 
term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work 
of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within 
the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary 
managed an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties they performed in managing the 
essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(l) 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). 
1 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 IO I (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 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary acted as a function 
manager abroad. First, the Petitioner has not clearly defined the Beneficiary's function. For instance, 
the Petitioner generally stated that the Beneficiary acted as a research analyst within the foreign 
employer's 'I I" and that he was assigned to different teams providing 
services to~us clients. However, the nature of this function is not clear; for instance, it appears 
likely thatl__Jcould be a function itself, but 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 preponderance of the submitted evidence suggests that 
the Beneficiary likely acted as an entry level research analyst and that he primarily performed non­
qualifying operational tasks. There is insufficient supporting evidence to substantiate the Petitioner's 
claim that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managing a function. In fact, as noted, there is 
no supporting evidence to corroborate the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary primarily managed 
his claimed function rather than performing duties to support the 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. 
Indeed, the conflicting foreign organizational chart provided in response to the Director's RFE reflects 
that the Beneficiary supervising two operational employees and that he reported to an associate and 
an even more senior associate partner. Therefore, this evidence does not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary acted at a senior level within his claimed function abroad or that he exercised discretion 
over the day-to-day operations of a defined function. As such, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary acted as a function manager abroad. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial 
capacity abroad. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7