dismissed EB-1C Case: Software Development

(b)(6)
DATE: DEC 1 0 201� 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security­
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petit�on for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative App eals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If Y<;>u believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of App eal or Motion (Form 
I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
'� INf Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative App eals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition and affirmed his decision after granting the petitioner's subsequent motion to reopen. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify the beneficiary as a 
multinational manager or executive pursuant to section 203(b )(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 11 53(b)(1)( C). The petitioner is a publicly traded U.S. corporation engaged in software 
development with subsidiaries worldwide. It seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of Senior 
Program Manager. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the beneficiary was 
employed by its foreign subsidiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that the 
beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the evidence of record 
establishes that the beneficiary was employed abroad and will be employed in the United States in a 
managerial capacity, specifically, as the manager of an essential function within the organization. 
I. THE LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available .. . to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. - An alien is 
described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the 
time of the alien's application for classification and admission into the 
United States under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 
year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or 
subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United States in order to 
continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or 
affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives or managers who 
have previously worked for the firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that 
entity, and are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
Section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day to day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. 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 super vised are professional. 
Finally, if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, USCIS must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the 
overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. Section 101 (a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
II. FOREIGN EMPL OYMENT 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary was employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity with the petitioner's subsidiary for at least one year during the 
three years preceding his admission as an L-1B nonimmigrant intracompany transferee in April 2007. 
A. Facts 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140 on March 28, 2013 . The petitioner, a software products development 
company, is headquartered in the United States with 55,000 U.S. employees and approximately 94,000 
employees worldwide. 
In a letter submitted in support of the petition, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary was employed by its 
subsidiary from August 2000 until May 2007 in "multiple managerial positions." Specifically, the 
petitioner stated that he served as a consultant from August 2000 until August 2001, as a senior consultant 
from August 2001 until September 2005, and as a principal consultant from September 2005 until May 2007, 
at which time the petitioner indicates that he transferred to the United States in L-1 status to serve in the 
position of Program Manager. 
The petitioner stated that the beneficiary performed the following duties as a principal consultant: 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECJSJO]I 
The Beneficiary managed a subdivision, function, or component of the organization. As 
Principal Consultant with [the petitioner's Consulting Services division], [the beneficiary] 
was responsible for working with corporate clients and writing functional specifications 
based on their needs. He worked with clients through the process of solution development, 
including determining functional specifications, managing tasks across milestones, managing 
and overseeing the testing process, and providing guidance to the customers. He made key 
business value assessments with clients and established the business strategy, solutions, 
infrastructure, and application development based on clients' needs. After he established the 
business specifications, he provided leadership to Software Design Engineers and Software 
Design Engineers in Test to ensure that the specifications are met. In order to meet the 
specifications, he worked with vendor teams in India and at the subsidiary in 
The Beneficiary managed an essential function within the department or subdivision of 
the organization. The function managed by [the beneficiary] was essential to [the petitioner] 
because it had a direct impact on [the company's] market position and revenue for the 
subsidiary .... For example, as the Principal Consultant, [the beneficiary] was responsible for 
establishing a new relationship between [the petitioner] and which 
resulted in $1 5 million in revenue for [the foreign subsidiary]. Since this function has a direct 
impact on customer needs and revenue for [the petitioner], [the beneficiary] managed an 
essential function within the organization. 
The beneficiary directly supervised and controlled the work of professionals. The 
beneficiary managed a team of nine professional employees all of whom possess the 
educational qualification and relevant work experience equivalent to a Bachelor's degree, or a 
Master's degree, in a field related to computer software development. [The beneficiary] 
oversaw six Software Development Engineers, and three Software Design Engineers in Test. 
Two of the Software Design Engineers were employees of The 
employees he oversaw were responsible for building a system for identity 
management needs and also supported identity management needs to ensure compliance. In 
addition to the nine professional employees, [the beneficiary] also oversaw 10 employees 
where [sic] were in India. 
The Beneficiary functioned at a senior level with respect to the function managed. As a 
Principal Consultant [the beneficiary] worked at a senior level with respect to establishing 
relationships and specifications with new customers for the subsidiary. [The beneficiary] 
operated at a senior level and received only limited supervision in carrying out his managerial 
duties. Internally, he worked with senior management in the steering committees to foster 
business relationships and establish plans for the new customers, as well as overseeing the 
budget identifying the management areas. He worked with external senior-level managers at 
corporations, for example to identify their needs and develop a plan to meet their 
needs. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The beneficiary exercised direction over day-to-day operations of the function or which 
he had authority. [The beneficiary] had discretion and direction over the day-to-day 
operations establishing and implement customer requirements for [the petitioner's] 
Consulting Services and received limited supervision from his manager. He managed the 
planning, scheduling, coordination and implementation of the day-to-day operations to ensure 
his client's needs were being met. He oversaw the design and development of the plans, as 
well as solve issues that arose. He established work plans for the development and testing of 
programs that were developed based on client requirements. [The beneficiary] possessed the 
authority to recommend the hiring, firing, and related personnel decisions for professional 
contract personnel. 
The director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) in which he advised the petitioner that its initial 
description of the beneficiary's duties was overly broad. The director asked that the petitioner provide a 
more detailed description and identify the actual, specific day-to-day tasks involved with each duty, as well 
as information regarding the percentage of time the beneficiary allocated to each specific duty. In addition, 
the director acknowledged the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary managed an essential function while 
employed by the foreign entity, but advised the petitioner that it did not provide sufficient detail or define the 
function. Accordingly, the director requested a detailed explanation of the essential function the beneficiary 
managed abroad. 
The director also requested a detailed organizational chart showing the beneficiary's last position abroad 
relative to others within the organization. The director requested the names and a detailed description of the 
job duties and requirements for the beneficiary's immediate supervisor, subordinates, and any indirect 
reports, and further requested that the chart include other departments and teams. Finally, the director 
requested that the petitioner support its statements with documentary evidence. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided a more detailed description of the beneficiary's duties and 
indicated that it considered such duties to be 75% managerial in nature and 25% non-managerial. Overall, 
the petitioner stated that the beneficiary spent 50% of his time coordinating business specifications for 
corporate clients by managing the solution development process; 10% of his time establishing business 
strategies based on clients' needs and making key business value assessments and decisions; 25% of his time 
directly managing Software Design Engineers and Software Design Engineers in Test to ensure that the 
functional specifications are met; and 20% of his time coordinating and managing projects with vendor 
teams in India and at the subsidiary in Specifically, the petitioner described the beneficiary's duties 
as follows: 
Manage implementation of Identity, Access, and Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) management system 
for corporate clients (e.g. . . (10% -Managerial) 
• Coordinate customers' global SOX project and coordinate deliverables from IT. 
• Prioritize scenarios, features, and development work to meet customers' target dates. 
• Oversee and coordinate project steering committee meetings to get a holistic view of 
how all projects are working together. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS!OJ 
• Manage project transitions to the operations team to make sure the product will work 
in a production environment. 
Meet corporate clients' internal customers to gather requirements and translate these to 
functional specifications .. . (25% -Non-managerial) 
Provide leadership and direction to corporate clients' global SOX implementation teams to 
ensure delivery of the right product to support new processes needed for SOX compliance 
(10% -Managerial) 
• Understand the customers' new processes and goals for SOX and recommend IT 
processes to cover these. 
• Recommend and implement staffing and processes changes. 
• Train customers' staff on new tools and processes. 
• Act as escalation point for all issues being reported by employees through helpdesk 
or other processes. 
Collaborate with corporate clients' executives to establish roadmap for the project and report 
on project progress. (5% -Managerial) 
• Participate in steering committee meetings with corporate executives. 
• Prepare steering committee presentations and write and distribute meeting notes. 
• Meet projects ' chairmen and owners outside of the regular meetings to discuss 
finances and resourcing. 
Define and implement new global Identity and Access Management policies for corporate 
clients. (10 % -Managerial) 
• Work with customers' Chief Security Officer to identify required policies for IT 
Security. 
• Write the IT Policies with input from customer's Global Security Team and IT 
Governance. 
• Manage feedback on IT Policies and update the policies based on the feedback. 
Manage the development and test team for features, tasks, and bugs. (5% -Managerial) 
• From identified feature requirements, identify task breakdowns and assign these to 
individual testers and developers. 
• Follow up on estimated completion dates and load balance work between team 
members as needed. 
Review, assess, and approve all reported issues and bugs to make sure the product has the 
right quality when released. (10 % -Managerial) 
• Lead the bug triage team to decide when and if product bugs should be addressed. 
• Coordinate with the test team to drive the correct product quality. 
• Document all unresolved issues so the customers can understand what are known 
issues with the delivered product. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Review and approve proposed technical solutions and direct SDE/SDET to the correct 
implementation. (10% -Managerial) 
• When a feature has been handed over to the developer team, review design 
specifications and provide feedback. 
• Act as a sounding board when developers are in early planning and need help with 
directions. 
• Together with other leaders in the team, approve the design of the item. 
Plan, assign and follow-up on development tasks assigned to the vendor team. (5% -
Managerial) 
• Coordinate and decide which items are to be handed over to the vendor located in 
India. 
• Coordinate with the on-site vendor's contact on features and work to be performed. 
• Train the vendor team in India on new features and product functionality. 
• Follow up on progress and product quality when completed. 
Review and approve technical proposals by the vendor and direct them to the correct 
technical solution .... (10% -Managerial) 
Coordinate deliverables by the team in India and the development team in to ensure 
all required tasks are delivered at the same time across the teams. (10 % -Managerial) 
• Coordinate with the different teams to make sure all deliverables needed for a 
specific date come in at the same time and can be tested in one scenario testing. 
• Coordinate testing for the components being delivered from the two teams to make 
sure the end to end scenario is working as expected by customers. 
The petitioner also submitted an organizational chart for the foreign entity which depicts the beneficiary as 
"Principal Consultant and Lead Analyst." The chart shows his immediate supervisor as a "Senior Consultant 
Lead" and the reporting hierarchy above this position includes a Principal Consultant Lead, a Services 
Manager, and finally, the foreign entity's General Manager. The chart does not identify the beneficiary's 
department or division, the beneficiary's placement within the department, other teams in the same 
department, or other departments within the foreign entity's organizational structure. 
According to the submitted organizational chart, the beneficiary directly supervised two "Analysts." The 
chart indicates that the beneficiary indirectly supervised a total of nine developers including two "Core 
Developers," four' Developers," two " Developers" and one Developer." Finally, 
the chart shows that the beneficiary indirectly supervised a ten"..person vendor team located in India. The 
petitioner provided names and a brief summary of duties for the analyst and developer positions, noting that 
the developer and analyst positions require a Bachelor's degree or equivalent work experience. 
The petitioner also briefly described the duties performed by the beneficiary's immediate supervisor, a 
"Senior Consultant Lead," noting that he assigned consultants to projects led by the company 's Consulting 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Services organization, ensured that projects were completed on time and within budget, and ensured that 
consultants are trained and equipped to deliver projects based on new technologies. 
The petitioner also maintained that the beneficiary managed an essential function in his role as Principal 
Consultant, noting that he was a member of the Security and Identity group, which is "an integral component 
of [the petitioner's] Consulting Services." In this regard, the petitioner explained that this division boosts the 
company's market position and revenue, while the Security and Identity group provides the company's 
partners with comprehensive security and identify for their businesses that protects their IT infrastructure, 
applications and data from threats. The petitioner emphasized that the beneficiary established a new 
relationship with corporation which resulted in $15 million in revenue for the foreign subsidiary. The 
petitioner asserts that such relationships would not be possible without the services provided by the 
company's Security and Identity group. 
The director denied the petition on December 10, 2013, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that 
the foreign entity employed the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity . The director 
addressed the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary managed an essential function within the Security and 
Identity group of the foreign entity's Consulting Services group, but found that the petitioner failed to 
establish how the beneficiary functioned at a senior level with respect to this function given his described 
duties and placement within the organizational hierarchy. The director noted that the beneficiary's 
supervisor has the authority to assign projects to consultants, and suggested that a project manager cannot be 
equated to a manager of an essential function. 
The petitioner subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion, the petitioner 
asserted that the totality of the evidence was sufficient to establish that the beneficiary held functional 
management authority over the foreign entity's Security and Identity group and was employed in a 
managerial capacity. The petitioner emphasized that this group is a fundamental component of the group's 
Consulting Services organization. It stated that "under [the beneficiary's] leadership, the Security and 
Identity group possessed a deep technical and engineering skill set coupled with business and management 
skills." 
Further, the petitioner contended that "[the beneficiary's] management responsibilities went well beyond 'a 
project"' and noted that he "held functional management authority over Security and Identity group project 
milestones, the testing process performed by Software Development Engineers in Test, the establishment of 
cross-group strategies for key clients, and the indirect supervision of a large team of Software Development 
Engineer employees and two Analysts." 
In addition, the petitioner asserted that the director failed to consider whether the beneficiary operated at a 
senior level with respect to the function he managed, and instead only considered his position within the 
foreign entity's overall organizational hierarchy. In this regard, the petitioner asserted that the record 
"overwhelmingly supports" that the beneficiary held "senior level management over project milestones, the 
testing process, establishment of cross-group strategies for key clients, and indirect supervision of large 
teams of Software Development Engineer employee[ s] and vendor professionals, as well as two 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Analysts." The petitioner also emphasized that, given that the company has over 99,000 employees, many of 
its managerial positions fall "several layers deep within the organization's reporting structure." 
The petitioner also clarified that the beneficiary's former manager had authority to assign expense reports 
related to consulting project assignments, but was not involved in the day-to-day management of projects. It 
stated that the beneficiary met with his direct manager once per year, while "the deep structure relying on 
independent contractors and vendor professionals was created to facilitate project-driven goals so that the 
beneficiary, who indirectly managed the professional employees and vendors, did not have formal direct 
reporting lines to him." 
Finally, the petitioner asserted that the director did not accord appropriate weight to the beneficiary's 
supervision of personnel simply because some of the personnel were vendor staff or independent contractors. 
The petitioner emphasized that he indirectly supervised nine of the foreign subsidiary's employees and that 
his supervisory duties should have been considered within the scope of the function he managed. 
The petitioner's evidence on motion included an expanded organizational chart depicting the beneficiary's 
position with the foreign entity. The chart indicates that the beneficiary indirectly managed two analysts 
(both employees), the aforementioned nine developers, as well as 10 vendor employees based in 
India, identified on the chart as "SDE" and "SDET." 
The director granted the petitioner's motion, but affirmed his determination that the petitioner did not 
establish that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a managerial or executive capacity. The 
director acknowledged the petitioner's assertions and the new organizational chart, but found the evidence as 
a whole insufficient to establish· that the segment of the Security and Identity group managed by the 
beneficiary is an "essential function" of the foreign entity. In reaching this conclusion, the director observed 
that "[g]enerally USCIS understands that projects do not qualify as an essential function." 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief that includes the same assertions made on motion and contends that 
the evidence of record establishes the beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review, and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was 
employed by the foreign entity for at least one year in the three years preceding his transfer to the United 
States to work for the petitioner in L-1B nonimmigrant status in Ap ril 2007.1 
When determining whether a beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity, the AAO will 
look first to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(5). The petitioner's 
description of the job duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate 
1 In a letter submitted in support of the pet ition, counsel for the petitioner stated that the beneficiary "was 
previously granted L-1A status." The beneficiary was in H-1B nonimmigrant status at the time of filing. 
USCIS records reflect that an I-129 petition requesting an extension of the beneficiary's L-IB nonimmigrant 
status was denied on April 13, 2010 and that the beneficiary had been maintaining H-1B status since 2010. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
whether such duties are either in an executive or managerial capacity. /d. A detailed job description· is 
crucial, as the duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the beneficiary's employment. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Sup p. 11 03, 11 08 (E.D.N.Y. 1989 ), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). We will then 
consider this information in light of other relevant factors, including (but not limited to) job descriptions of 
the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the nature of the business conducted, and any other facts that may 
contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the beneficiary's actual duties and role in the organizational 
hierarchy of the entity in question. 
The petitioner has consistently claimed that the beneficiary managed an essential function of the foreign 
entity. The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not directly supervise or 
control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential 
function" within the organization. See section 10 1( a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 11 01( a)(44)(A)(ii). 
The term "essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that the 
beneficiary is managing an essential function, the petitioner must furnish provide a job description that 
clearly describes the duties to be performed in managing the essential function, i.e. identify the function with 
specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the beneficiary's 
daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(5). In addition, the 
petitioner's description of the beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary manages the 
function rather than performs the duties related to the function. An employee who "primarily" performs the 
tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)( 44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one 
"primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology 
Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
Here, the pet itioner provided a breakdown of the beneficiary's duties as principal consultant2 in response to 
the RFE, but did not adequately support its claim that 75% of the beneficiary's time was allocated to 
performing managerial duties. The petitioner acknowledged that 25% of his time was spent performing 
duties that it considered to be non-managerial including meeting with clients to gather requirements and 
translate requirements to functional specifications, completing scenario testing, interacting with helpdesk 
staff to obtain feedback, keeping track of requirements, communicating with project stakeholders, and 
guiding staff in translating requirements to use cases and user interface design. 
However, the petitioner classified all other tasks performed by the beneficiary as managerial without 
providing sufficient explanation in some instances as to how such duties qualify. For example, the petitioner 
stated that the beneficiary provided leadership to clients' teams by understanding customer processes, 
training customer staff, and handling escalated helpdesk issues. The petitioner did not explain how such 
duties can be distinguished from those necessary to provide agreed upon consulting services to the client. 
The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary directly performed such tasks rather than allocating them to 
indirectly supervised employees in Sweden or vendors in India. The petitioner did not establish that 
2 We note that the record reflects that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity as a senior 
consultant from August 2001 to September 2005 . The petitioner did not provide the beneficiary's job duties 
for this position, or otherwise assert that this position qualifies the beneficiary as a manager or executive with 
the foreign entity. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
provision of guidance, training and technical support to clients' teams, which required 10% of his time, is a 
qualifying managerial duty. 
Similarly, the beneficiary's responsibility for defining clients' Identity and Access Management policies, 
which the petitioner stated required another 10% of his time, has not been shown to be managerial in nature. 
The petitioner specified that the beneficiary was responsible for identifying the clients' requirements for IT 
policies, writing IT policies for the customer with input from its security and IT governance teams, and 
updating policies based on feedback. This duty is comparable to the beneficiary's responsibility for gathering 
functional requirements and developing a solution based on those requirements, a duty that the petitioner 
characterized as non-managerial in nature. Further, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary directly 
provided this service to the client to fulfill the terms of the foreign entity's consulting agreement. 
In addition, portions of other responsibilities identified as managerial included non-qualifying duties, such as 
reviewing and assessing reported bugs, documenting unresolved issues for customers, providing training to 
vendors and coordinating testing. As the petitioner assigned percentages of time to groups of duties rather 
than to specific duties, we cannot determine how much time the beneficiary allocated to these additional non­
managerial duties. Overall, the descriptions of the beneficiary's duties are insufficient to demonstrate that he 
allocated his time primarily to managerial tasks. Rather, it is more likely than not that he divided his time 
approximat ely equally between qualifying and non-qualifying tasks. 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when examining 
the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the petitioner's organizational 
structure, the duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve 
the beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the petitioner's business, and any other 
factors that will contribute to a complete understanding of a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
In the case of a function manager, where no subordinates are directly supervised, these other factors may 
include the beneficiary's position in the organizational hierarchy with respect to the function managed, the 
depth of the company's organizational structure, the scope of the beneficiary's authority and its impact on the 
petitioner's operations, the indirect supervision of employees within the scope of the function managed, and 
the value of the budgets, products, or services that the beneficiary manages. 
The petitioner has consistently stated that the beneficiary was employed in a qualifying capacity as a function 
manager, but has not clearly or consistently identified what essential function he managed for the foreign 
entity. At the time of filing, the petitioner mentioned the impact the company's Consulting Services business 
segment had on the subsidiary's revenue and market position, and noted that the beneficiary "was responsible 
for establishing a new relationship" between the foreign entity and which resulting in $1 5 
million in revenue. While this figure is significant, the petitioner did not clearly define the beneficiary's role 
in establishing the relationship or explain what this relationship entailed or how it required the beneficiary to 
manage an essential function. 
In response to the RFE and on motion, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary held functional management 
authority over Security and Identity Group, and stated that "the Security and Identify [sic] function is of 
utmost importance to the successful operation of [the company 's] Consulting Services and [the company] in 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
general," and "is the essential function within the organization." The petitioner also contends that the 
beneficiary operated at a higher level than that of a project manager, noting that he held authority over 
Security and Identity group project milestones, the testing process, the establishment of cross-group 
strategies for key clients, and the indirect supervision of a large team. The petitioner contends that the record 
"overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that [the beneficiary] functioned at a senior level with respect to 
the Security and Identity function he managed." 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence, the record does not support the petitioner's claim that the 
beneficiary managed the Security and Identity function for the foreign entity. The organizational chart 
submitted identifies only the beneficiary's immediate chain of command, but did not include other 
information requested by the director, such as other departments and teams within the foreign subsidiary. 
Critically, the chart does not identify the Consulting Services organization, the Security and Identity group or 
the beneficiary's placement within it. This failure of documentation is important because this information 
may have served to corroborate the petitioner's claims that the beneficiary functioned at a senior level within 
the subsidiary's Security and Identity group. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 19 0 (Reg. 
Comm'r 1972)). 
As noted by the director, the record reflects that the beneficiary's supervisor was responsible for assigning 
consultants to projects and accountable for delivering projects on time and within budget. The chart did not 
show the other consultants who reported to the same Senior Consultant Lead or what their areas of 
responsibility were. Without this information, it is unclear how the record supports the petitioner's claim that 
the beneficiary was in charge of all Security and Identity Group functions for the subsidiary, particularly as 
the petitioner mentioned only one client with which the beneficiary worked during his tenure as a Principal 
Consultant. In addition, the description of the beneficiary's duties indicated that his role in the assigned 
client projects did not extend to budgetary authority or responsibility, and his job description refers to "other 
team leaders" who had a role in approving designs from vendor staff. Therefore, the record does not 
establish that he had full authority over his assigned project(s), much less over all projects within the 
Security and Identify group. 
Further the director's determination that the beneficiary's role as principal consultant was comparable to that 
of a project manager was not unreasonable based on the job duties and organizational chart submitted. 
However, we do not agree with the director's finding that a project manager is categorically excluded from 
qualifying as a function manager under section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act. As the term "essential function" is 
not defined in the statute or regulations, we review all function manager claims on a case-by-case basis. As 
noted above, it is the petitioner's burden to clearly define the function manager, explain the essential nature 
of that function, provide a detailed description of the beneficiary's duties, and establish that the beneficiary's 
duties are primarily related to the management of an essential function. 
Here, the beneficiary's job description indicates that he led teams of developers to gather requirements and 
implement solutions within the Security and Identity group, but it did not define his duties in terms of 
managing the entire group, nor did it identify a specific essential function managed by him within that group 
or explain how he operated at a senior level within the function managed. Rather, the petitioner attempted to 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
define his role within the function by repeating his job description, which, as addressed above, does not 
establish that his duties were primarily managerial in nature. Further, although we do not discount that the 
company's relationship with resulting in $1 5 million in revenue may have qualified as an essential 
function within the Security and Identity group, but the petitioner did not adequately describe exactly what 
this client project or contract entailed or explain how the beneficiary established and managed the 
relationship, particularly in light of the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary's supervisor assigned his 
projects to him and held ultimate financial responsibility for these projects. There is simply insufficient 
evidence to establish that the beneficiary functioned at a senior level with respect to a clearly defined 
function or component of the foreign entity's organization or that he performed primarily managerial duties 
related to that function. 
For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign 
entity in a qualifying managerial capacity. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT 
The remaining issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. 
A. Facts 
The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary, in his role as Senior Program Manager, is and will be 
responsible for managing the design, implementation and feature lifecycle for Synchronization Service, a 
component that is shipped with the company's product. It provided a 
detailed position description in response to the director's RFE and specified the amount of time the 
beneficiary allocates to his duties. Overall, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary primarily allocates 
his time to managerial duties, which include the authority to assign subcomponents and deliverables to 
engineering and technical staff, authority over the product's short- and long-term upgrade and release 
strategy, signing off on new product releases, and acting as the Product Group's authoritative source on the 
Synchronization Service component of its product. 
The petitioner provided an organizational chart and job descriptions for the beneficiary's immediate 
supervisor and for his indirect subordinates. The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary's manager, a Senior 
Program Manager Lead is responsible for identity infrastructure across cloud and "on-prem" products, and 
manages a total of Senior Program Managers. The petitioner explained that the beneficiary manages an 
essential function, as the product generates over $80 million in annual revenues and he is responsible 
for a key component of this product. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The director acknowledged the petitioner's claim that the 
beneficiary would manage an essential function but found that, based on the evidence submitted "it would 
appear that it is more likely that the beneficiary's supervisor, as Senior Program Manager Lead, manages an 
essential function of providing identity infrastructure for cloud and on-prem[ises] products." The director 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
further determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate that the beneficiary would function at a senior 
level within the organization to qualify as a function manager, or that the 
qualifies as an essential function within the petitioner's business. In addition, the director determined that 
some portion of the beneficiary's time spent performing managerial duties would in fact be spent managing 
vendor or contractor staff, which the director found to be "non-qualifying reports." 
On motion, the petitioner reiterated its claim that the beneficiary acts as a function manager with authority 
over the design, implementation and feature lifecycle for the company's The 
petitioner emphasized that although the beneficiary reports to a Program Manager Lead who supervises other 
Senior Program Managers, each of these managers is responsible for different functions related to the 
Identity Infrastructure, apart from In addition, the petitioner emphasized that 
the beneficiary indirectly manages 32 software development professional employees and vendors devoted to 
completed tasks assigned and managed by the beneficiary. The petitioner maintained 
that the fact that the beneficiary has other senior-level managers and executives above him in the overall 
organizational hierarchy does not undermine his responsibility for managing a function, particularly in light 
of the depth of the company's structure. 
In support of the motion, the petitioner provided a certified statement of the beneficiary's duties as Senior 
Program Manager from the beneficiary's manager, who confirmed that the beneficiary "holds functional 
management authority to assign, manage and oversee specific projects related to , the 
most important component of the product." In addition, he stated that the beneficiary "retains discretion 
and direction over operations including control over policy" and "provides 
indirect management and leadership to one Project Management professional and four teams." The 
petitioner also submitted a redacted copy of a Statement of Work between the petitioner and a vendor for the 
development and extension of 201 0 connectors for various systems and scenarios. The statement of 
work identifies the beneficiary as the petitioner's primary contact for work to be performed by the vendor. 
The director affirmed the denial of the petition on motion. With respect to the beneficiary's U.S. position, 
the director observed that " is but a component or segment of l " and that is 
"a component of the petitioner Server and Cloud Platform." The director determined that the petitioner did 
not establish that the beneficiary's position is "high enough in the organizational structure to commit the 
entire organization, or even the petitioner's Cloud Computing product and operations." 
The director acknowledged the statement from the beneficiary's manager and the petitioner's claim that the 
beneficiary's oversight of qualifies as management of an essential function. The 
director determined that "it appears more likely that the product or the broader identify infrastructure or 
the Cloud Platform would be considered an essential function of the petitioner and that the petitioner has 
attempted to define a component of an essential function as the essential function itself." 
On appeal, the petitioner emphasizes the claims and evidence it submitted on motion and further asserts that 
the director erred by finding that the beneficiary, as a function manager, must operate at a senior level within 
the petitioner's overall organizational hierarchy. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
B. Analysis 
Upon review, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. 
Accordingly, the director's decision will be withdrawn with respect to this issue. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, USCIS looks first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.50)(3). The petitioner's description of the job 
duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties 
are in either an executive or a managerial capacity. !d. 
The statutory definition of managerial capacity under section 101 (a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act allows for both 
"personnel managers" and "function managers." Personnel managers must primarily supervise and control 
the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, whereas function managers must 
primarily manage an essential function within the organization. While the term "esse ntial function" is not 
further defined by statute or regulation, a petitioner who claims that the beneficiary qualifies as a function 
manager must identify the essential function and describe in detail the duties to be performed in managing 
that function. 8 C.P.R. § 214 .2(1)(3)(ii). 
Furthermore, the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the function rather than 
perform the duties related to the function. Whether the beneficiary will be a function manager turns on 
whether his or her duties will be "primar ily" managerial. See IKEA US1 Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. 
Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). While a function manager may use his or her business or technical expertise 
to perform some operational or administrative tasks, he or she primarily must manage an essential function; 
someone else must primarily perform the day-to-day, non-managerial tasks associated with that function. 
To determine whether a beneficiary would primarily manage an essential function, USCIS must consider the 
totality of the record and weigh all relevant factors, including: the nature and scope of the petitioner's 
business; the petitioner's organizational structure and a beneficiary's position within it; the scope of a 
beneficiary's authority and its impact on the petitioner's operations; the work performed by other staff within 
the petitioner's organization, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual 
duties and role in a business. When staffing levels are considered in determining whether an individual will 
act as a "function manager," an officer must also take into account the reasonable needs of the organization 
as a whole. 
The director's adverse decision was based on a finding that the beneficiary's management of a component of 
a product cannot qualify as an "essential function" or as a "department, subdivision, function or component 
of the organization," pursuant to section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
As the term "essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation, USCIS must evaluate each function 
manager claim on a case-by-case basis and not based on a preconceived view regarding what type of function 
may qualify as "essential." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
Here, the petitioner has established that the be neficiary's responsibilities as a Senior Program Manager are 
primarily managerial duties associated with overall technical development for a component of a key product. 
The petitioner has provided sufficient support for a conclusion that, within the context of its business, the 
management of the development of a critical component of a product that generates $80 million in revenue 
qualifies an essential function within the organization. See section 101 (a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
In addition, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary manages this function independently, that he 
operates at a senior level with respect to the development and continuous upgrade of • 
and that he has significant authority over the day-to-day operations of the development activities for which 
he has authority as required by sections 101 (a)(44)(A)(iii) and (iv) of the Act. 
Finally, the petitioner has described the beneficiary's duties in sufficient detailed to establish that he will be 
primarily performing managerial duties and will not allocate a significant portion to his time to tasks that are 
not within the statutory definition of managerial capacity. The beneficiary indirectly supervises several 
teams of professional staff who relieve him from having to primarily perform non-managerial duties 
associated with the development of The fact that some of the employees are 
vendors or contractors does not undermine the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary's duties are primarily 
managerial in nature or otherwise detract from its claim that he manages an essential function. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary is 
employed in a managerial capacity. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The director's 
adverse finding with respect to this issue will be withdrawn. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed based on the petitioner's failure to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 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 ; 
Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.