dismissed EB-1C Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-T- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 31, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR AUEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development and consulting company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as a technology manager under the first preference immigrant classification for 
multinational executives or managers. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). 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, as fequired, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
or executive capacity. The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or-executive capacity abroad. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional support letters -and contends that the Beneficiary acts 
abroad, and would act in the United States, as a function manager. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing _of the 
petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least. one year in a managerial or 
executive capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or 
executive services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b )(l )(C) of the 
Act. . 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that-the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the 
same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign ·employer, and that the prospective U.S. 
employer has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3). · 
.
Mqtter of l-T- LLC 
IL FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The first issue we will address is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary acts in a 
managerial capacity abroad. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary is employed in an 
executive capacity abroad . . Therefore , we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary is 
employed in a managerial capacity. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
ma~ages 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 101(a)(44)(A). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(5) requires the Petitioner to submit a statement that clearly 
describes the duties performed by the Beneficiary abroad. Beyond the required description of the 
foreign job duties, we review the totality of the evidence when examining the claimed managerial 
. capacity of a beneficiary abroad, including the foreign employer's organizational structure, the 
duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees abroad, the presence of other employees to relieve a 
beneficiary from performing operational duties , the nature of the foreign business , and any other 
factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business . . 
abroad . Accordingly, our analysis of this issue will focus on the Beneficiary's duties as well as the 
foreign employer's business activities and staffing levels . 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary performs certain high-level responsibilities abroad 
consistent with the statutory definitions of managerial capacity . Champion World. Inc. v. INS, 940 
F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). In addition, the Petitioner must prove that 
the Beneficiary is primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities alongside the foreig~ employer's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 
1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006) ; Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. . 
The Petitioner stated that it and the Beneficiary's foreign employer are "in the business of building 
Products and Solutions for Enterprises like and and indicated that the company 
uses the platform for building these products ." The Petitioner stated that the 
foreign employer provides these services to clients in the United States using offshore teams in 
India . The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary has "been involved for many years on 
determining what and how can a functionality be implemented on and that he 
comes up "with innovative solutions if some business logic canriot be techniq11ly implemented in 
straight forward way on 
2 
.
Mauer ofl-T- LLC 
In support of the pehtton, the Petitioner did not provide a separate and comprehensive duty 
description specific to the Beneficiary ' s role as a technology manager abroad , but the Petitioner's 
statements indicated that his role abroad was largely identical to his proposed U.S. role, only that he 
would coordinate in person with clients when transferred. For instance , the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary "manages and supervises a professional team of Engineers , Business analysts, Quality 
Analysts and other computer professionals ." The Petitioner listed the following additional duties 
that the Beneficiary was currently performing, as follows : 
· • engages with the client to understand business objectives , conceptualize product offerings 
and effectively present concepts to customers, 
. • drives the strategy and direction for his division , 
• guides the entire ___ based services including conceptualization , delivery 
and client engagement, 
• engages clients to convey and drive buy-in on development solutions and works with the 
account team to grow business , 
• manages product workload , 
• partners with account and business development teams on pitches to win new projects , 
• facilitates in the development of sales plans and client development plans, 
• manages and supervises a professional team of Team Leaders , Engineers, Business 
analysts, Quality Analysts and other computer professionals , 
• assigns work based on priority and level of complexity, 
• sets up all release plans, product feature suggestions and ideas, creates high level design 
for the product and features , 
• assigns the specific duties to team leads, reviews reports from members of his team, 
monitors project performance , and approves completed projects , 
• assigns subordinate personnel to communicate and meet with strategic clients, 
• reviews subordinate engineers' tasks , 
• · unfettered authority over personnel decisions , including performance reviews , 
promotions , and boimses, 
• interviews and helps select qualified candidates , 
• decides the order of priority assigned to the projects, and 
• decides the amount of budgetary expenditures specific to his team . 
In addition, the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary ' s resume which indicated that he had worked as· 
a technology manager abroad on three primary client projects during the three years preceding the 
date of the petition dating back to August 20 I 3. 1. The resume listed similar duties for each one of the 
projects, indicating that the Beneficiary was tasked with : 
• understanding the requirements and coming up with the requirement specification 
document for every Sprint , 
• suggesting features and technology to be used, 
1 The petition was filed in October 2016. 
3 
.
Maller <~f 1-T- LLC 
• breaking down the Sprint items to scrum tasks, 
• involved in overall application architecture and database design, 
• acting as a scrum master and managed deliverables for the Scrum, 
• identifying risks in the scrum and mitigated them, 
• helping the testing team with the test plan and test cases, 
• one point to contact for the client from requirement to delivery, 
• · responsible for team member appraisal, recruitment, and training, 
• setting up the framework on top of which the product was built, 
• building the whole backend where the front end ... interact[ed] via REST API, 
• implementing complex business use cases, 
• analyzing the slow query log, 
• analyzing cache handling, integrations with MS Dynamics, 
• developing the complex solution for sales management, 
• designing the escalation management to track, 
• designing the shipping and logistics management, ~nd 
• designing a solution for predictive analytics . 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the Petitioner did not submit a statement 
specific to the Beneficiary's foreign employment and requested that it provide a statement of his 
foreign job duties, including specific daily tasks and the percentage of time he spends on each duty. 
In response, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary had worked for more than six years on 
projects and possesses a "good knowledge on the business functions." · The 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary managed teams at the client sites and offshore, interacted with 
the client team, provided advice on requirements, and distributed tasks to the client and foreign 
employer teams . The Petitioner then largely listed the same duties for the Beneficiary both in his 
role abroad and proposed role in the United States, and these positions appeared to be identical , 
beyond physical location. It further indicated that the Berieficiary has "sole managerial discretion 
over all day-to-day operations of the departments and team working under him," assigns projects, 
decides on budgetary expenditures; interacts with the offshore team in India to make sure they 
deliver the functionalities per the client expectations, and supervises the "business development 
team." 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides yet another duty description also largely similar to those 
previously submitted .· The Petitioner's chief opera(ing officer (COO) explains in a letter that the 
Beneficiary "has been managing the team who work on and the Healthcare, E­
Commerce verticals," he acts as a point of contact with the client, coordinates between the client and 
the offshore team including developers, quality analysts, project managers, architects, and team 
leads, reviews metrics, and makes decisions on resource hiring, firing and other personnel matters. 
The COO also indicated that . the Beneficiary is responsible fo~ managing all phases of the project 
through the "business functionality division ," including pre-sales, design, development and testing, 
and "UA T and acceptance." In addition, the Petitioner provides an additional duty descriptim:i for 
the Beneficiary listing some of the following tasks : 
4 
· Mauer of 1-T- LLC 
• logically design and negotiate solutions, 
,• participate in the long-term planning for products, 
• provide the point of accountability to the Business Owner, 
• identify and develop support for new opportunities, 
• validate technology aspects of competitive threats, 
• · ensure that commitments are met while providing high quality and cost effective systems, 
• ensure that the development team follows standard SDLC procedures, 
• assist with planning a11:d scheduling of product releases, 
• proactively suggest areas of improvement and enhancement, 
• responsible for projects · software design and contributes to the overall enterprise 
architecture design, 
• monitor project metrics,.and 
• coach and mentor individuals on the project teams. 
The Petitioner has submitted duties that suggest his wide involv~ment in various operational level 
information technology tasks, such as engaging with clients to gather requirements, creating product 
offerings for these clients and presenting them, pitching solutions to win projects, setting up release 
plans and making product feature suggestions and ideas, and creating· designs arid features for 
products. Likewise, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was also tasked with several other 
non-qualifying operational tasks such as designing databases and API structure, managing 
deliverables for the scrum, helping the testing team with test plans and cases, setting up the 
framework on top of which the product was built, building the whole backend where the front end 
interacts via REST AP[, implementing complex business use cases, analyzing the slow query log, 
putting together requirements documents, analyzed cache handling; and developed solutions for 
sales management, ·escalation management, s~ipping and logistics, and predictive analytics. Further, 
on appeal, the Petitioner itemizes several other apparent operational level duties such as doing return 
on in".estments with clients, working on demos, interacting and helping architects on design, 
resolving conflicts between the client and offshore resources, acting as a point of contact for 
escalations from the client, preparing metrics, looking for opportunities to "up-sell," and collecting 
user feedback on solutions. 
Although we acknowledge that the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary oversees teams of 
information technology professionals in the provision of solutions for clients, his various duty 
descriptions also include several non-qualifying operational level tasks that leave question as to 
whether he is primarily performing managerial duties. In fact, the Petitioner indicates that the 
Beneficiary acts as the one point of contact between the company's offshore teams and its U.S. 
based clients, suggesting that he is likely widely involved in the day-to-9ay operational matters of 
providing services. 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial. See section l0l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Here, the Petitioner does not document what proportion of the Beneficiary's foreign duties are· 
5 
.
Maller of 1-T- LLC 
managerial functions and what proportion are n~n-qualifying, despite the request of the Director to 
provide a duty description specific to his foreign employment including percentages of time he 
devotes to each daily task. This requested evidence would have been probative in determining 
whether the Beneficiary primarily devotes his time to managerial level duties. The Petitioner 
provides numerous duty descriptions on the record including both manag~rial tasks and 
administrative or operational tasks, but does not •quantify the time the Beneficiary spends on these 
different duties. This lack-of documentation is important because several of the Beneficiary's daily 
tasks, as discussed, do not fall directly under managerial duties as defined in the statute. For this 
reason ; we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of a 
manager abroad. See IKEA US. Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of.Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
~n fact, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary manages information technology projects and 
teams of professionals in India who perform development services for its client. [n addition, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary is fully responsible for delegating tasks to these professionals, 
selecting them, handling all personnel matters related to them, and involved in various other 
managerial level tasks in directing these teams . However; the Petitioner provides insufficient detail 
and little supporting documentation to substantiate these asserted managerial duties, such as 
evidence of the Beneficiary assigning tasks to subordinates , providing direction to team members, 
conducting their appraisals, interviewing candidates and selecting them for assignments , arranging 
for their training, or deciding on budgetary matters with respect to his projects and teams. This lack 
of detail and supporting documentation is particularly noteworthy since the Petitioner asserts that the 
Beneficiary has been managing these projects for over three years. The Petitioner must support its 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Maller of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
369, 376 (AAO 2010) . 
The fact that the Beneficiary manages or directs business does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classification as a multinational manager. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that 
• the duties of a foreign position be "primarily" managerial in nature . Sections 101 (A)(44)(A) of the 
Act. Even though the.Beneficiary may exercise discretion over some of the foreign employer's day­
to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision­
making, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his foreign duties are 
primarily managerial in nature . 
B. Staffing and Operations 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity, the reasonable needs of the organization are taken into account in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development of the organization . See section 10 l (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
As discussed, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary supervises various teams of information 
technology professionals including engineers, business analysts, quality analysts, and team leads 
who create solutions for its clients in The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary 
acts as a function manager who is responsible for managing all phases of its client projects, 
6 
Matter of 1-T- LLC 
including the "business functionality division," who handles pre-sales preparation of solutions, the 
design of the solution, development and testing, and user training and acceptance from the client. As 
noted, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary acts as the "one point of contact" with the client 
and that he coordinates between them and the foreign employer's offshore t~ams of IT professionals. 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the 
work of a _subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" 
within the organization. See section I0I(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. (fa petitioner claims that a 
beneficiary manages an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties performed in managing 
the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(I) the function is a clearly 
defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential;' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the beneficiary 
primarily manages, as opposed to performs, the function; (4) the beneficiary acts at a senior level 
. within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the beneficiary 
exercises discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matier of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 
2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
The Petitioner did not submit sufficient detail and evidence to clearly define the Beneficiary's 
function or demonstrate that he primarily directs his asserted function rather than perfom1ing it. The 
Petitioner only generally states that the Beneficiary acts as the one point of contact with its U.S. 
based clients and that he coordinates between them and its-offshore teams. However, the Petitioner 
did not sufficiently describe these teams and their make-up. Although, the Petitioner submits 
general duties for the various members of a typical IT team, such as team and project leads, business 
analysts, quality analysts, it submits no comprehensive foreign organizational chart to substantiate 
the members of Beneficiary's various teams, the clients they serve, or the specific duties they 
provide. 
Likewise, as we have discussed, the Petitioner submits little supporting documentation to 
con:oborate the Beneficiary's direction of these professional IT teams or his delegation of non­
qualifying operational duties to them. [n fact, the Petitioner submits numerous invoices for the 
foreign employer's provision of services to U.S. based clients; however, they indicate that the 
foreign employer assigning its foreign based employees to clients on an hourly basis, suggesting that 
they may be contracted information technology labor that is not directed by the foreign employer or 
the Beneficiary once assigned to a client. Therefore; the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient 
detail and supporting evidence to substantiate the specific nature of the Beneficiary's asserted 
•function. It is not sufficient to simply state that the Beneficiary oversees all the company's client 
interactions and various teams without describing them in detail and documenting them. 
Further, as previously discussed, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary 
primarily manages his claimed function, if clearly defined, rather than perform the duties of the 
function. As noted, the Petitioner submits a duty description reflecting numerous non-qualifying 
operational tasks. The Petitioner also indicated that the Beneficiary acts as the only direct point of 
contact to the company's clients, indicating that he is likely widely involved in non-qualifying 
duties, such as collecting requirement information, sales activities, and the design and execution of 
solutions. We acknowledge that it is likely that the Beneficiary directs information technology 
7 
Matter of 1-T- LLC 
employees and that he may gamer their assistance in the performance of the company's services; 
however, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail and documentation regarding his claimed 
supervision and delegation _of duties to these employees as necessary to demonstrate that he is 
primarily relieved from performing non-qualifying operational tasks. In other words, the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary is primarily tasked with managing his function 
rather than performing it. · 
Therefore, the Petitio·ner has not clearly described the Beneficiary's duties or the function he 
manages nor has it properly explained and documented how he is primarily relieved from 
performing the duties of his function. As such, the Petitioner has also not established that the 
Beneficiary acts as a function manager and that he is employed in a managerial capacity abroad. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The next issue we wjll address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial capacity in the United States. The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States; as such, we will only 
analyze whether he would be employe,d · in a managerial capacity. In addition, because of the 
dispositive effect of the above finding of ineligibility; namely, our affirmation of the Director's 
conclusion with respect to the Beneficiary's asserted foreign managerial capacity, we will only 
briefly address the remaining issue pertaining to his proposed empioyment in the United States. 
As mentioned, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary would act in essentially the same role in 
the United States as he does abroad, as a function manager, acting as the primary point of contact 
between its U.S. based clients and its offshore information technology teams. Therefore, for similar 
reasons as discussed in the previous section, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary would act as a function manager in the United States. Again, the Beneficiary's 
· various duty descriptions include numerous non-qualifying operational tasks and the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently defined how much time he would devote to these tasks as opposed to managerial 
duties. · 
Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently articulated and documented the members of the offshore 
teams the Beneficiary would oversee. In fact, in support of the petition, the Petitioner submitted a 
U.S. organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary would oversee a project lead supervising a 
quality analyst and a business analyst. The Petitioner also submitted resumes and employment offer 
letters extended to these individuals near to the date of the petition being filed ·in June and July 2016. 
However, in response to the RFE and on appeal, the submitted organizational charts do not include 
these subordinates, but only generally mention the Beneficiary supervising various teams of 
information technology employees and cqordinating between clients and foreign employer offshore 
teams. The Petitioner provides no explanation for this change, leaving only further uncertainty as to 
his proposed U.S. role. Therefore, for reasons similar to those expressed in the previous section, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary would be primarily devoted to 
managerial duties in the United States and it has not properly explained and documented how he 
8 
Matter of 1-T- LLC 
would be primarily relieved from performing his assery.ed function. As such, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity in the United States. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity or that he would be employed in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
. 
Cite as Matter of 1-T- LLC, ID# I 884354 (AAO Dec. 3 I, 2018) 
9