dismissed EB-1C Case: Semiconductors

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 17, 2024 In Re: 31415696 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a provider of embedded semiconductors and secure connectivity solutions, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as a principal SQA engineer (lead/manager) 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)(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. The matter is now before 
us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&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. 
I. LAW 
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. 
If the beneficiary is outside the United States at the time of filing, the petitioner must demonstrate that 
the beneficiary's one year of qualifying foreign employment occurred within the three years 
immediately preceding the filing of the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A). If the beneficiary is 
already in the United States working for the petitioner, or its affiliate or subsidiary, at the time of filing, 
the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary's year of foreign employment in a managerial or 
executive capacity occurred in the three years preceding their entry as a nonimmigrant. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B) . 
The statute defines "managerial capacity" as 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, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(44)(A). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The sole issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 1 The record reflects that the Petitioner's foreign 
affiliate employed the Beneficiary in the position of senior SQA engineer between April 2016 and 
January 2018, when he was transferred to the United States to work for the Petitioner. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees and must also have the authority to hire and fire 
employees or recommend those and other personnel actions. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) and (iii) of 
the Act. 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." Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad as a function manager. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director concluded that "the majority of evidence shows that 
the beneficiary was primarily involved in the operational aspects of the function abroad" as opposed 
to primarily performing managerial job duties. The Director further determined the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary operated "at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy," either within the foreign affiliate as a whole or with respect to a function, as required by 
section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that it submitted a detailed letter from the foreign entity 
"confirming [the Beneficiary's] position as a functional manager, leading and managing the 
automation and testing engineering function with [the foreign affiliate]" along with supporting 
evidence of his managerial duties. The Petitioner contends that "the record clearly shows that the 
Beneficiary was at minimum the manager of a clearly defined function throughout the period of 
employment with the qualifying foreign entity prior to joining the Petitioner in the United States." 
To establish that a beneficiary is eligible for immigrant classification as a multinational manager, a 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary performed all four of the high-level responsibilities set forth 
in the statutory definition of"managerial capacity" at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. If a petitioner 
establishes that the position meets all four elements set forth in the statutory definition, it must then 
1 The Petitioner does not claim the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity as defined at section 
10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
2 
prove that the beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside other company employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 
1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
Where, as here, the 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). 
In determining whether a beneficiary's duties were primarily managerial, we consider the required 
description of the job duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of any subordinate 
employees, the presence of other personnel to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational 
duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding the 
beneficiary's actual duties and role in the business. Here, after consideration of these factors, and the 
requirements applicable to function managers as outlined in Matter of G-, Inc., we conclude that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
In support of its claim that the Beneficiary managed an essential function of its foreign affiliate, the 
Petitioner submitted: a letter from A-S-, Senior Director of Wireless Engineering for the foreign entity; 
an organizational chart depicting the foreign entity's structure and management hierarchy; and copies 
of internal email communications from 2016 and 201 7 which were intended to corroborate the 
Beneficiary's performance of managerial duties during this time. 
In his letter, Mr. S- asserted that the Beneficiary "led and managed an essential component within the 
organization," "exercised discretionary decision-making authority in the day-to-day operation of [the 
company's] critical wireless product Automation Systems and Solutions," and "functioned at a senior­
level" within the Indian subsidiary. He also stated that the Beneficiary "managed the Automation 
function" and "worked alongside other management level peers," emphasizing that "administrative 
support was provided to [ management level employees] such that they were not directly responsible 
for the performance of any front-line professional tasks or any administrative tasks." 
Mr. S- explained that the Beneficiary was "critical" to the delivery of complete automation 
frameworks and solutions used to test the company's Wi-Fi and Bluetooth portfolios for its wireless 
business line. Finally, he stated that the Beneficiary "oversaw the work of a team of ten (10) indirect 
reports, including SQA Engineers and associate SQA Engineers." 
To demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed abroad as a function manager, the Petitioner must 
show, in part, that his assignment involved the management of an essential function within the 
organization and that he held a position at a senior level within the foreign affiliate's organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed. See section 101 (a)(44)(ii) and (iii) of the Act; see 
also Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
3 
The record establishes that the petitioner and its foreign affiliate are engaged in the provision of secure 
connectivity solutions. We do not question that the delivery of the automation frameworks and 
solutions needed for the testing and validation of its wireless products is essential to the foreign 
affiliate's business operations. However, the record does not provide sufficient support for the 
Petitioner's statement that the Beneficiary managed "the automation and testing engineering function" 
for its Indian affiliate nor does it corroborate Mr. S-' s statement that the Beneficiary "managed the 
Automation function," and functioned at a senior level within the company. 
As evidence of the Beneficiary's placement within the foreign affiliate's hierarchy, the Petitioner 
provided an organizational chart for its "Wireless R&D" division. 2 The chart shows that Mr. S- served 
as Senior Director of Wireless Engineering within this division or component, reporting to the "VP 
Wireless Connectivity." The two employees who reported directly to Mr. S- included: (1) H-P-, a "Sr. 
Manager SQA" who directly supervised three India-based employees with the job title "Manager 
SQA," each with their own team of subordinate SQA engineers; and (2) S-C-, the "Director of 
Engineering SQA" who directly supervised three managerial employees who in tum supervised SQA 
engineers and/or subordinate SQA managers with their own teams of engineers. The organizational 
chart does not identify the functional area of responsibility of the various teams or business units led 
by employees with managerial job titles. Nor does it clearly depict the structure of the "wireless 
product Automation Systems and Solutions" function that Petitioner claims the Beneficiary managed. 
The chart shows that the Beneficiary, as a senior SQA engineer, and four other SQA engineers, all 
directly reported to M-N-, a "Manager SQA," who in tum reported to H-P-, a "Senior Manager SQA." 
Given the Beneficiary's placement within the hierarchy, the chart does not demonstrate that he served 
at a senior level within the Indian affiliate or, with respect to a clearly delineated function within the 
organization. Rather, it shows that he and several other engineers reported to a first-line manager 
whose duties and area of functional responsibility have not been described in the record. Further, the 
India-based operations of the Wireless R&D division employed at least six other "Manager SQA" 
employees, each with their own direct reports. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary's job title is not dispositive of the nature of 
his position. We agree that the Beneficiary's position title is not material to our evaluation of the 
position under the statutory definition of managerial capacity. However, the placement of the position 
within the foreign entity's organizational hierarchy is relevant, pursuant to section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iii) 
of the Act. Here, the management structure illustrated by the submitted organizational chart does not 
depict the Beneficiary's senior SQA engineer position as a senior or management-level position within 
either the Indian affiliate or the "Wireless R&D" division, nor does it corroborate his claimed position 
as a function manager with senior level authority over "the automation and testing engineering 
function." For this reason alone, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad as a function manager. As noted, to establish the Beneficiary's eligibility as a 
multinational manager, the Petitioner must show that his position abroad met all four prongs of the 
statutory definition of managerial capacity at section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
2 While not dated, the chart depicts the Beneficiary as an India-based employee in the position of "Senior SQA Engineer" 
and therefore appears to depict the stmcture of the Wireless R&D division in 2016 or 2017, when he held that position. 
4 
Further, although Mr. S- stated in his letter that the Beneficiary oversaw a team of lOindirect reports 
with the job titles SQA engineer and associate SQA engineer, this indirect oversight authority is not 
illustrated on the organizational chart. In addition, the submitted evidence does not otherwise identify 
these claimed indirect reports or the duties they performed to relieve the Beneficiary from carrying 
out the operational duties associated with the function the Petitioner claims he managed. 
Therefore, while the submitted description of the Beneficiary's duties contains various references to 
his responsibility for leading or driving the activities of a "team," that team is not adequately 
documented in the record. This deficiency raises questions regarding the extent to which the 
Beneficiary allocated non-managerial duties to other personnel. In fact, many of the responsibilities 
attributed to the Beneficiary, which the Petitioner describes as "100%" related to the management of 
a function, suggest that he was engaged in operational duties alongside other SQA engineers. 
For example, Mr. S- stated in his letter that the Beneficiary "analyzed, identified, designed, and delivered 
new features by driving team to accommodate more dynamic testing of [the company's] proprietary 
automation frameworks," and was responsible for release planning, analyzing customer requirements 
for customization and integration, new feature testing, and verification of fixes. According to the job 
description, these areas of responsibility accounted for 40 percent of his time. However, the description 
also indicates that, in performing these responsibilities, the Beneficiary was required to understand and 
map customer requirements into features, to "understand and automate new features implemented" on 
wireless product lines, to design and add new features in the automation framework to support such 
features, and to design missing features in the framework to its usability. The description does not 
indicate how much time he allocated to this design-related work or indicate these tasks were managerial. 
It conveys that the Beneficiary was responsible to "drive the team" responsible for implementing the 
newly designed features, but as noted, the record does not document the members of his "team" or 
otherwise identify the ten indirect reports referenced in the letter from Mr. S-. 
Whether a beneficiary is a "function" manager turns in part on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial. See Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). The position description suggests that the Beneficiary 
performed advanced technical duties and had some authority to assign some tasks to other engineers, 
but it does not sufficiently demonstrate that he primarily managed a function or performed the higher­
level managerial duties described at section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
This conclusion is supported by the information provided in the Beneficiary's resume, which includes 
a description of his role as "Senior Automation and SQA Engineer" with the foreign entity. The 
resume highlights the Beneficiary's responsibility to lead checklist and code review meetings and 
indicates that he mentored, coordinated, and trained junior engineers. However, the duties described 
therein do not reflect his performance of primarily managerial duties, his assignment to a senior 
position within the foreign entity's organizational hierarchy, or his claimed overarching responsibility 
for the automation solutions and testing function for the company's wireless product line. Rather, the 
Beneficiary's resume indicates that he performing many non-managerial tasks associated with this 
function, including "Bug Analysis," "Tracking Customer Opened Defects," preparing software 
specification documents for customer use, resolving complex problems, fixing bugs in the automation 
framework, unit test case execution and automation, fixing reported automation issues, and 
performance testing. 
5 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner had submitted 
copies of internal email communications from 2016 and 2017 in support of its claim that the 
Beneficiary's duties as a senior SQA engineer were managerial. Following a discussion of the emails, 
the Director concluded that the evidence "indicates that the Beneficiary had been working with other 
engineering professionals to complete these tasks," but did not show that he was operating at a high 
level within the organizational hierarchy or that he was relieved from performing many of the 
operational duties of the function he was claimed to manage. The Petitioner submits some additional 
e-mail communications on appeal but does not specifically address the Director's determination that 
the emails do not provide adequate support for the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary primarily 
performed managerial duties in his role as a senior SQA engineer. 
The emails demonstrate the Beneficiary's interactions with his direct supervisor and other SQA 
managers depicted on the foreign entity's organizational chart and his assignment of some technical 
tasks to other SQA engineers, but do not provide sufficient context to support the Petitioner's claim 
that he was operating at a senior level with respect to the automation and testing solutions function or 
that he was significantly relieved from performing operational duties associated with that function. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Director's observation that the Petitioner appeared to have made material 
changes to the Beneficiary's duties abroad to make the position conform to the requirements of the 
requested multinational executive or manager classification. Specifically, the Director noted in both 
a request for evidence (RFE) and in the decision that the Petitioner previously filed a Form I-140, 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, requesting the Beneficiary's classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. The Director emphasized 
that the labor certification accompanying that petition did not attribute managerial duties to the 
Beneficiary's previous position as a senior SQA engineer or otherwise characterize that role as 
primarily managerial in nature. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary's position with its foreign affiliate required 
him to use his advanced knowledge of the company's proprietary technologies while performing duties 
that were managerial in nature. Further, the Petitioner maintains that the job description included in 
the labor certification associated with the prior Form I-140 did not solely describe the Beneficiary's 
responsibilities as a senior SQA engineer, but rather included duties he performed in his initial position 
with the foreign entity as an SQA Engineer, which the Petitioner concedes was not a managerial 
position. Nevertheless, the Petitioner contends that there are different criteria for classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree under section 203(b )(2) of the act and 
classification as a multinational manager under section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act, and that the labor 
certification reasonably focused on the Beneficiary's relevant professional skills and knowledge rather 
on his managerial experience. Based on these explanations, the Petitioner maintains that the 
information contained in the labor certification "does not negate information in the I-140 filed for a 
multinational manager." 
We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the multinational manager and advanced degree 
professional immigrant classifications have different statutory requirements but are not mutually 
exclusive. However, regardless of whether the Petitioner previously characterized the Beneficiary's 
India-based senior SQA engineer position as managerial in nature, the evidence submitted in support 
of this petition, for the reasons discussed, does not establish that he was employed abroad in a 
6 
managerial capacity as defined at section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act and as further described in Matter 
of G-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
Overall, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary, based on his placement within the "Wireless 
R&D" division, acted at at a senior level within the Petitioner's foreign affiliate or with respect to the 
function he is claimed to have managed. Further, the Petitioner has not documented the 10-person 
team of indirect reports who are claimed to have relieved him from performing operational tasks 
associated with the function. Finally, the Beneficiary's duties, as described in the foreign entity's 
letter and in his resume, reflect that he was significantly involved in such operational tasks, 
notwithstanding his apparent authority to assign some lower-level tasks to other SQA engineers. 
Therefore, we cannot determine that the Beneficiary primarily managed the wireless product 
automation systems and solutions function as claimed or that he exercised the required level of 
discretion over its day-to-day operations. The Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad as a function manager. 
III. PRIOR L-1 A APPROVAL 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary was previously granted L-lA nonimmigrant classification as 
an intracompany transferee employed in a managerial capacity. However, eligibility as an L-1 A 
nonimmigrant does not automatically establish eligibility under the statutory and regulatory criteria 
for the requested immigrant visa classification as a multinational executive or manager. Each petition 
is separate and independent and must be adjudicated on its own merits, under the corresponding 
statutory and regulatory provisions. 
Further, in this case, the Beneficiary was initially transferred to the United States as an L-1 B 
nonimmigrant with specialized knowledge to serve as a senior SQA engineer. The reflects he was 
subsequently promoted to the position of principal SQA engineer and granted L-lA classification 
when the Petitioner filed a petition to extend his status. The Petitioner was not required to demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity in order to establish his eligibility 
for this change from L-lB status to L-lA status. Even if U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
had previously determined that he was employed in a managerial capacity abroad, we are not bound 
by service center or district director's decisions. See, e.g., La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7