dismissed EB-1C Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6371262 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 15, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Manager or Executive 
The Petitioner, a provider of management consulting services, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
manager under the first-preference, immigrant classification for multinational managers or executives. 
See 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. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate its proposed employment of the Beneficiary in a required managerial 
or executive capacity, or his prior role abroad in either capacity. The Director also found insufficient 
evidence of the Petitioner's required ability to pay the proffered wage of the offered position. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. See section 291 
of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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)(l)(C) of the Act. If a beneficiary already works in the United States for a 
petitioner or its affiliate or subsidiary, as in this case, the petitioner must demonstrate that the 
beneficiary's year of foreign employment occurred in the three years before their U.S. entry as a 
nonimmigrant. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5U)(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 requirements discussed above. 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5U)(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. § 204.50)(3)(0) . In addition, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may request further evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5U)(3)(ii). 
II. PROPOSED U.S. EMPLOYMENT 
The Petitioner states that it would permanently employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a 
managerial capacity. The term "managerial capacity" means "primarily": 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) having 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 the day-to-day operations of an activity or function. Section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
A petitioner must demonstrate a beneficiary's proposed performance of the high-level responsibilities 
stated in the definition of managerial capacity. A petitioner must also show that a beneficiary would 
"primarily" engage in managerial duties, as opposed to operational activities. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
The definition of managerial capacity allows for management of both personnel and essential 
functions. Section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The Petitioner does not propose the Beneficiary's 
management of a function in the United States. We will therefore consider his proposed employment 
only as a "personnel manager." Personnel managers must primarily supervise and control the work of 
other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Id. "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 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. If directly 
supervising employees, a beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire them, or to 
recommend those and other personnel actions. Section 101(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
When considering the managerial nature of an offered position, USCIS examines a petitioner's 
descriptions of the position's job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(5) (requiring a petitioner to submit a 
letter that "clearly describe[s] the duties to be performed by the alien"). USCIS also considers: the 
organizational structure and nature of the U.S. business; the existence of employees who would relieve 
a beneficiary from primarily performing operational tasks; and the duties of a beneficiary's 
subordinates. 
The offered position of manager involves managing a project team at a client site. The Director found 
that the Petitioner's response to his written request for additional evidence (RFE) contained 
"completely different" job duties for the offered position than the company originally indicated in its 
petition. The Director also noted that, according to the Petitioner's RFE response, the size of the 
Beneficiary's project team grew from six to 17 members. The Director concluded that "USCIS is 
unable to determine based on multiple different sets of duties, which duties the beneficiary truly 
performs, or the percentage amount of time he spends on managerial and non-managerial duties." See 
Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistences of 
record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
The Petitioner's RFE response included job duties that the company's initial submission omitted. But 
the record indicates that both sets of duties are mostly consistent. The following table matches job 
duties listed in the RFE response (including percentages of time spent on the duties) with those stated 
in the initial petition. 
2 
RFE Response Initial Petition 
10%, "client engagement" duties, including Not described 
providing updates and feedback, and resolving 
issues. 
10%, "delivery and approach" duties, including "leads and oversees his team in the preparation 
leading business process changes, content of the technical delivery plan" 
management and digital strategies, and 
implementation and migration plans 
30%, "resource management" duties, including "manages the [Petitioner's] resources assigned 
communicating, directing, and prioritizing to the engagement" "by effectively 
project tasks communicating with project stakeholders, 
overseeing the delivery of the work distribution 
among the development team," "delegating 
work, assigning tasks" 
10%, "schedule and scope" duties, including "maintain project timelines," "setting schedules, 
managing project timelines and schedules and establishing time lines for his team," 
"evaluates and manages project metrics and 
milestones" 
10%, identifying and mitigating risks "highlight risks and monitors his project teams 
in order to ensure that corrective action is taken 
and risks are mitigated" 
10%, "business development" duties, including Not described 
developing client relationships and identifying 
new project opportunities 
10%, "coaching and resource development" "leading recruitment and training of his direct 
duties, including helping to hire, retain, and reports," "responsible for career progression," 
grow talent "manages and oversees effective training 
promams," "serves as a coach and mentor" 
5%, "proposal and statement of work" duties, Not described 
including writing and developing statements of 
work to develop business 
5%, "eminence and brand development" duties, Not described. 
including presenting at conferences and 
publishing case studies 
The table shows that most of the job duties listed in the Petitioner's RFE response correspond to duties 
stated in the company's initial submission. Also, the record indicates that the Beneficiary would spend 
only 30 percent of his time on job duties omitted from the Petitioner's initial submission, including: 
10% on client relationship duties; 10% on business development duties; 5% on proposal and statement 
of work duties; and 5% on eminence and brand development duties. Thus, contrary to the Director's 
finding, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner described the job duties of the offered position in 
a mostly consistent manner. 
The Petitioner initially described the Beneficiary's project team as consisting of six members. An 
initial organizational chart, however, shows a 10-person team, and the Petitioner's RFE response 
included a new chart showing 17 members. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the size of the 
3 
Beneficiary's project team in the RFE response was "an update," not an inconsistency. The Petitioner 
states: "While the number of direct reports [to the Beneficiary] were accurate at the time of both 
submissions, these numbers will change based on client needs, business needs, projects, and internal 
restructuring and movement." We accept the Petitioner's explanation of the increased number of team 
members. Despite the team's increased size, the RFE response indicates that the job duties of the 
offered position did not significantly change. 
The descriptions of the offered position's job duties, however, do not establish that the Beneficiary 
would "primarily" work in a managerial capacity. The proposed "resource management" and 
"coaching and resource development" sets of duties are managerial in nature, as they involve 
supervising professional project team members. But the Petitioner estimates that these duties would 
occupy only 40% of the Beneficiary's time. The record does not demonstrate the managerial nature 
of the remaining, majority duties. The "schedule and scope" duty set includes "establishing time lines 
for his team," and the "identifying and mitigating risks" duty set includes "monitor[ing] his project 
teams." The record, however, does not demonstrate that these individual duties involve the 
supervision of professional team members, as oppose to the overall management of project 
specifications. Also, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary would spend 10 percent of his time 
on both the "schedule and scope" and "identifying and mitigating risks" sets of duties. But the record 
does not detail how much of the Beneficiary's time the individual duties of "establishing time lines 
for his team" and "monitor[ing] his project teams" would occupy. The record therefore does not 
establish that the Beneficiary would "primarily" engage in managerial duties. 
The record on appeal does not establish the claimed managerial nature of the offered position. We 
will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
Ill. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The Petitioner also asserts the Beneficiary's employment abroad in a managerial role. As previously 
indicated, when considering the claimed, managerial nature of a position, USCIS examines 
descriptions of the position's job duties. A petitioner must demonstrate that a beneficiary performed 
the high-level responsibilities stated in the statutory definition of managerial capacity. A petitioner 
must also prove that a beneficiary "primarily" engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to operational 
activities. Family, 469 F.3d at 1316. USCIS also reviews other factors that may have affected the 
nature of a foreign position, including: the organizational structure of the foreign entity and the nature 
of its business; the existence of other employees who relieved a beneficiary from performing 
operational duties; and the duties of a beneficiary's subordinates. 
The Petitioner stated that its affiliate in Canada, which also provides management consulting services, 
employed the Beneficiary from June 2014 until his nonimmigrant admission into the United States in 
Apri I 2017. The Petitioner stated that he managed a three-member, project team, performing job duties 
like those of the offered position.1 
1 In its initial letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "managed a Function" in Canada. A preponderance of 
evidence, however, indicates that the Beneficiary supervised employees in Canada. We will therefore consider whether 
he served as a "personnel manager," rather than as a "function manager." 
4 
As with the offered position, the Director found that the Petitioner's initial submission and RFE 
response inconsistently describe the Beneficiary's foreign job duties. The Director therefore 
concluded that he could not determine whether the Beneficiary worked abroad in a managerial 
capacity. The Director also found that the Petitioner provided inconsistent dates of the Beneficiary's 
foreign employment. 2 
The Petitioner's RFE response included foreign job duties that the company's initial submission 
omitted. But the record indicates that both sets of foreign job duties are mostly consistent. The 
following table matches foreign job duties listed in the RFE response (including percentages of time 
spent on the duties) with those stated in the initial petition. 
RFE Response Initial Submission 
20%, "client engagement" duties, including "maintained the day-to-day relationship with our 
providing updates and feedback, and resolving clients, and managed the preparation of status 
issues. reports to ensure thorough communication," 
"supervised and maintained contact with top 
decision makers at key clients" 
20%, "delivery and approach" duties, including "leads and oversees his team in the preparation 
leading business process changes, content of the technical delivery plan" 
management and digital strategies, and 
implementation and mimation plans 
10%, "resource management" duties, including "manages the [Petitioner's] resources assigned 
communicating, directing, and prioritizing to the engagement" "by effectively 
project tasks communicating with project stakeholders, 
overseeing the delivery of the work distribution 
among the development team," "delegating 
work, assiqninq tasks" 
10%, "schedule and scope" duties, including "maintain project timelines," "setting schedules, 
managing project timelines and schedules and establishing time lines for his team," 
"evaluates and manages project metrics and 
milestones" 
10%, identifying and mitigating risks "highlight risks and monitors his project teams 
in order to ensure that corrective action is taken 
and risks are mitigated" 
20%, "Business development" duties, including Not described 
developing client relationships and identifying 
new project opportunities 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner notes that this portion of the Director's decision also contained a paragraph discussing a 
purported "master services agreement" between the Petitioner and an insurance company as evidence of the Beneficiary's 
foreign employment. As the Petitioner argues, the record contains no such agreement. The document appears to constitute 
evidence in a different case. The Petitioner states that the paragraph "wholly calls into question the rest of the Service's 
reasoning and unfavorable outcome. The irrelevant discussion in the Service's denial casts serious doubt as to the diligence 
and thoroughness [of the decision], and [it] appears the Service arrived [at] the decision [in a] conclusory [manner]." The 
Director, however, did not base his decision on the erroneous reference to the insurance agreement. The record therefore 
does not demonstrate, nor does the Petitioner specifically assert, that the error prejudiced it. 
5 
10%, "Coaching and resource development" 
duties, including helping to hire, retain, and 
grow talent 
"leading recruitment and training of his direct 
reports," "responsible for career progression," 
"manages and oversees effective training 
programs," "serves as a coach and mentor" 
The table shows that most of the foreign job duties listed in the Petitioner's RFE response correspond 
to foreign duties stated in the company's initial submission. Also, the record indicates that the 
Beneficiary spent only about 20% of his time on foreign job duties omitted from the Petitioner's initial 
submission, specifically business development duties. Thus, contrary to the Director's finding, the 
record demonstrates the Petitioner's descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties in a mostly 
consistent manner. 
As with the proposed duties of the offered position, however, the descriptions of the foreign job duties 
do not demonstrate the Beneficiary's employment in a managerial capacity. The "delivery and 
approach," "resource management," and "coaching and resource development" sets of duties indicate 
that they involved managing professional team members. These duty sets are therefore managerial in 
nature under section 144(a)(A) of the Act. But the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary spent only 
about 40 percent of his time on these duties. The record does not demonstrate the managerial nature 
of his remaining, foreign duties. The record therefore does not establish that the Beneficiary 
"primarily" performed in a managerial capacity abroad. For this additional reason, we will affirm the 
petition's denial. 
IV. ABILITY TO PAY THE PROFFERED WAGE 
A petitioner must also demonstrate its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage of an offered 
position, from a petition's priority date until a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). Evidence of ability to pay must generally include copies of annual reports, 
federal tax returns, or audited financial statements. Id. If a petitioner employs at least 100 people, 
like this Petitioner, however, USCIS "may accept" a statement from a financial officer as evidence of 
its ability to pay a proffered wage. Id. 
The Petitioner stated the proffered wage of the offered position of manager as $133,000 a year. The 
petition's priority date is March 26, 2018, its filing date. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d) (explaining how to 
determine a petition's priority date). 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of a "global impact report" and a letter from a financial officer 
indicating the company's employment of more than 21,000 people, with annual revenues of more than 
$8 billion. The report, however, does not constitute an "annual report" under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2), 
as it lacks detailed financial information. 
Also, the Director did not abuse his discretion in rejecting the financial officer's letter as sufficient 
evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay. USCIS records indicate the Petitioner's filing of multiple 
Form 1-140 petitions for other beneficiaries. See Patel v. Johnson, 2 F.Supp.3d 108, 124 (D. Mass 
2014) (affirming our revocation of a petition's approval where, as of the tiling's grant, a petitioner did 
not demonstrate its ability to pay the combined proffered wages of multiple petitions). Because the 
Petitioner must demonstrate its ability to pay the combined proffered wages of multiple petitions, the 
6 
summary letter from the company's financial officer does not demonstrate the company's ability to 
pay the proffered wage. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of payroll records indicating that it paid the Beneficiary more 
than the proffered wage in 2018. The record, however, lacks copies of proper annual reports, federal 
tax returns, or audited financial statements for 2018, the year of the petition's priority date. The record 
therefore lacks required evidence and does not establish the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered 
wage. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) (stating that, unless USCIS accepts a statement from a financial 
officer, evidence of ability to pay "shall be either in the form of copies of annual reports, federal tax 
returns, or audited financial statements") (emphasis added). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts its submission of sufficient evidence to demonstrate its ability to pay 
the proffered wage. As the Director's RFE indicates, however, the Petitioner's evidence had to include 
copies of annual reports, federal income tax returns, or audited financial statements. The Petitioner 
did not submit the requested, required documentation. The company's evidence is therefore 
insufficient. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14) (requiring a petition's denial if a petitioner omits requested 
evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry). 
V. CONCLUSION 
The record on appeal does not establish the claimed managerial nature of the offered position or the 
Beneficiary's work abroad. The Petitioner also has not demonstrated its required ability to pay the 
proffered wage. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7