dismissed EB-1C Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 17, 2024 In Re: 29340513 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of power transm1ss1on material handling products, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as its district manager under the fust 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)(l)(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 record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. The Director then 
discussed the Petitioner's response to a request for evidence (RFE), noting that the Petitioner 
resubmitted job descriptions that it provided in support of previously filed petitions and thus did not 
adequately address the RFE's concerns pertaining to the Beneficiary's former position. The Director 
noted that several of the listed duties were not inherently managerial and further stated that while some 
duties were managerial, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary allocated his time primarily 
to those duties. The Director also discussed a corresponding organizational chart that the Petitioner 
submitted, noting that the Beneficiary was depicted with a sales associate as his only subordinate, 
which undermined a supporting statement from human resources claiming that the Beneficiary's 
position included management of "sales teams in Canada." And because some of the Beneficiary ' s 
listed job duties were described as functions, the Director listed the criteria for a function manager, 
highlighting that the function managed must have been essential to the organization and the 
Beneficiary must have assumed a top-level position within the organization or with respect to the 
function. In sum, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide: 1) a more detailed job 
description with a percentage of time assigned to each duty; 2) a list of employees who were available 
to perform the duties of an essential function; and 3) educational credentials of the Beneficiary's 
subordinate establishing that the said subordinate was a professional. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asks us to consider the nature of the business and reiterates general 
information about its organization as well as the Beneficiary's previously submitted job duties, 
highlighting previously approved L-1 petitions that were filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. However, 
the Petitioner offers no farther information to address the previously noted deficiencies regarding the 
vagueness of the Beneficiary's job descriptions and the lack of a percentage breakdown establishing 
how much time the Beneficiary allocated to each of his assigned job duties. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's previously approved L-1 petitions, the Director previously explained that 
USCIS is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
despite any prior approvals, which may have been erroneous. See Matter ofChurch Scientology Int 'l, 
19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). In addition, USCIS has clarified that "an adjudicator's fact­
finding authority ... should not be constrained by any prior petition approval, but instead should be 
based on the merits of each case." USCIS Policy Memorandum, PM-602-0151, Rescission of 
Guidance Regarding Deference to Prior Determinations ofEligibility in the Adjudication ofPetitions 
for Extension of Nonimmigrant Status (Oct. 23, 
2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2017/2017-10-
23Rescission-of-Deference-PM6020151.pdf The memorandum also emphasized that "the burden of 
proof remains on the petitioner, even where an extension of nonimmigrant status is sought." Id. 
Therefore, our decision will be based on the sufficiency of the evidence and whether it adequately 
demonstrates that the Beneficiary's position abroad was comprised primarily of managerial job duties. 
As correctly and comprehensively discussed in the Director's decision, the Petitioner did not 
adequately address the RFE concerns regarding the Beneficiary's job descriptions and provided a 
deficient response that did not farther elaborate on the Beneficiary's job duties or state how much time 
he spent performing each of his assigned tasks. Likewise, on appeal, the Petitioner does not offer 
farther information addressing the previously noted deficiencies regarding the vagueness of the 
Beneficiary's job descriptions and the lack of a percentage breakdown establishing how much time 
the Beneficiary allocated to each of his assigned job duties. As such, the Petitioner has not established 
that in the position abroad the Beneficiary allocated his time primarily to performing managerial tasks 
in the course of managing an organization, department, or function and supervising professional or 
managerial employees or managing an essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2) (listing the 
criteria for managerial capacity). 
Accordingly, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 
874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice 
of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit 
that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit 
courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2