dismissed EB-1C Case: Technology Consulting

identifjling data deleted to 
prewnt clearly unwznanted 
invasion of pv"s10a1d privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition 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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a limited liability company operating as a consulting firm that offers technology 
services to business and public sector organizations. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
director of global delivery services. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary 
as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The 
director denied the petition on the basis of two independent grounds of ineligibility: 1) the 
beneficiary would not be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within the U.S. entity; and 
2) the beneficiary was not employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's conclusions and submits a brief in support of his 
arguments. A full discussion of counsel's points and the director's findings is provided below. 
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 and 
managers who have previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or 
subsidiary of that entity, and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its 
affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under 
section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is 
required for this classification. The prospective employer in the United States must fwnish a job 
offer in the form of a statement which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States 
in a managerial or executive capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be 
performed by the alien. 
The two primary issues in this proceeding call for an analysis of the beneficiary's job duties. 
Specifically, the AAO will examine the record to determine whether the beneficiary was employed 
abroad and whether he would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. 
Section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily-- 
(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 
supervised are professional. 
Section 10 1 (a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily-- 
(i) 
 directs the management of the organization or a major component or 
function of the organization; 
(ii) 
 establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(iii) 
 exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In support of the Form 1-140, the petitioner submitted a letter dated October 11, 2006, which 
includes the following description of the beneficiary's employment abroad: 
From January 2002 to September 2003 [the beneficiary] worked as a [slales [slupport 
[cloordinator of the [foreign entity]. In his position, [the beneficiary] utilized 
Capgemini DELIVER methodology to provide sales support and account 
management services . . . . He was assigned additional executive responsibility on the 
sales team. During his tenure, he was closely involved with sales executives from the 
U[.]K[.], France, [the] Netherlands, and [the] U[.]S[.]A[.] in developing solution 
offerings leveraging the model and resulting in the sale of global projects . . . . 
In his position, he was involved, independently as well as in teams, in developing 
solution offerings and competitive market offerings . . . . On behalf of the 
organization, he was responsible for making key strategic decisions including pricing, 
negotiating engagement terms and conditions with clients, determining the right mix 
of work distribution between location[s], determining the right mix of solutions 
offerings for clients, etc. He participated in face-[to-]face presentations with clients . 
. . . He worked on sales proposals . . . providing opportunities from systems 
integration to outsourcing services. He worked directly with the CEO . . . on multiple 
strategic initiatives like developing the sales strategy for 2004, deciding the growth 
strategy for [the foreign entity]. He assisted [elngagement [dlirectors and [plroject 
[mlanagers in the coordination of sales efforts and distribution of tasks among team 
members and worked closely with business teams to ensue sophisticated and 
effective client expectation management1communication management. He directly 
supervised the sales support team consisting of 4 people. 
In addition to the aforementioned duties, he was responsible for the evaluation, 
organization, and distribution of project tasks as part of executing [the foreign 
entityl's proprietary [applications]. He identified deliverables and ensured their 
timely execution and adherence to client specifications. . . . 
The petitioner also provided the following description of the beneficiary's proposed employment in 
the United States: 
[The beneficiary has been employed as the [dlirector of [gllobal [dlelivery [slervices 
for [the petitioner]. Global [dlelivery [slervice is the [petitioner's] service line that 
delivers projects to clients using a combination of onsite, offsite, nearshore and 
offshore teams . . . . The [gllobal [dlelivery [slervice line is one of six service lines 
that [the petitioner] has developed. In his capacity as [dlirector, [gllobal [dlelivery 
[slervices, he is the executive responsible for coordinating all sales activities for the 
[gllobal [dlelivery [slewices practice. [The beneficiary] is responsible for ensuing 
that all [of the petitioner's] North-America [sic] based . . . teams receive the 
appropriate level of support in sales activities[,] including assistance to estimate 
projects . . ., determining the right composition of service offerings to clients, make 
pricinglstaffing decisions among others. In this role which requires specialized 
knowledge . . ., he coordinates the sales activities of over 50 sales executives and 
advises each sales executive on the appropriate utilization of the Distributed Delivery 
Model to maximize the value proposition for their clients, and to increase the win 
probability for [the petitioner]. He also works closely with all [of the petitionerl's 
business leaders . . . advising them of the actions required to successfully deliver 
solutions to clients . . . . 
[The beneficiary] develops [the petitionerl's profile as a preferred IT [slervices 
[plrovider, and networks with client executives and [the petitioner's] sales/account 
management teams to build strong customer relationships. He works with clients to 
define custom solutions . . . . This includes working with the [slales executives to 
qualify prospective opportunities, coach them on how to position the right solution 
for the client, [and] help gather required information from clients . . . . 
[The beneficiary] participates in solution development activities, and identifies sales 
opportunities. This includes coaching sales executives and helping them understand 
how to position the global delivery model for clients, preparing, and customizing 
marketing collateral to help them position the model for clients, and to constantly 
support them in better understanding the global delivery message. He provides 
support . . . to build offers leveraging [gllobal [dlelivery [slervices. He applies his 
extensive, specialized knowledge . . . in order to assure that optimal value 
propositions can be developed for the client . . . . He additionally coordinates the 
solution setup and delivery . . . . 
On August 27, 2007, the director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) instructing the 
petitioner to provide detailed descriptions of the specific job duties the beneficiary performed during 
his employment abroad and the job duties he would perform during his proposed position with the 
U.S. entity. The petitioner was asked to assign a percentage of time the beneficiary spent and would 
spend performing each enumerated task. The petitioner was also asked to discuss the job titles and 
job duties of his subordinates and supervisors in his foreign and proposed positions and to provide 
organizational charts identifying the beneficiary's prior and proposed positions with each employer. 
In response, the petitioner provided a letter dated September 25,2007, which included the requested 
job descriptions. The description of the beneficiary's proposed position was broken down into four 
main categories with 30% of the beneficiary's time assigned to each of the first three categories and 
10% of his time assigned to the remaining category. 
The first category-providing leadership in global sales opportunities-would require teams of staff 
comprised of three to fifteen technical, marketing, back office, and sales staff working jointly to 
come up with solutions to address customer needs. The beneficiary would also lead sales 
presentations and proposals before chief information officers (CIO), chief operations officers 
(COO), and chief executive officers (CEO). The beneficiary would take the lead in contract 
negotiations and have the discretionary authority to decide which opportunities to pursue, and which 
solution is right for a specific client, the cost to the client, and the number of staff members needed 
to carry out a particular project. 
With regard to the second category-profitable growth of the global delivery practice-the 
beneficiary would be responsible for ensuring that the global delivery practice achieves a sustained 
and significant growth, which would be measured by the profit margin level. The beneficiary would 
be required to make decisions regarding pricing and staff allocation, which may require additional 
hiring. The beneficiary would also forecast growth of the practice and be assigned budget targets. 
The third category-developing/nurturing the global delivery community, including traininglcareer 
progression-would entail working with counselors in the business units to prepare staff members 
that are working with the global delivery practice. The beneficiary would also be responsible for 
establishing, administering, and preparing a community of global delivery practitioners. This would 
require that the beneficiary makes training available and takes part as a leader in conducting training 
sessions for the vice presidents, directors, principals, and account managers. 
Lastly, the fourth category-engagement oversight and governance-would require that the 
beneficiary take part in steering committees and project reviews designed to ensure that the 
petitioner's delivery meets customer expectations. The beneficiary would also meet with CIOs and 
information technology (IT) directors to make delivery-related strategic decisions to change the 
petitioner's approach, strategy, or staff assigned to various projects. 
The beneficiary's employment abroad was broken down into three categories with 40% of the 
beneficiary's time being allotted to each of the first two categories and 20% of his time allotted to the 
remaining category. 
The first category-provided leadership in global sales opportunities-required the beneficiary to 
oversee the sales support analysts, create sales proposals, and make decisions regarding the ultimate 
approach, methods, estimates, and pricing. The beneficiary generally led three to six staff members 
in responding to client requests and proposals. 
The second category-assisted in solution definition--entailed assignment of sales support analysts 
to specific sales opportunities and assembling a team of staff members to work on sales proposals 
and presentations to client executives. The beneficiary led the sales teams to understand client 
requirements, assigned tasks to the right team members, and reviewed their completed work. The 
beneficiary was directly involved in writing the proposal and managing the proposal process. 
The third category--developed sales and marketing collateral and built community of sales support 
analysts-required preparing presentations and brochures highlighting the company's capabilities 
and solutions. The beneficiary was also responsible for training, mentoring, and counseling new 
sales support analysts and advising the vice president of sales on hiring decisions and performance 
reviews of the sales staff. 
On January 9, 2008, the director issued a decision denying the petitioner's Form 1-140, finding that 
the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary's foreign and proposed employment as being within a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity. With respect to the beneficiary's proposed 
employment, the director noted that the position appears to be that of team leader whose main goal is 
to implement the sales approach created by the company. The director found that the evidence does 
not establish that the beneficiary would supervise employees in his proposed position or that he 
supervised employees during his employment abroad. Rather, the director observed that the 
petitioner provided information about the positions the beneficiary has and would indirectly 
supervise. Lastly, the director found the beneficiary's foreign and proposed job descriptions to be 
inadequate in providing insight into the beneficiary's daily activity. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that most of the beneficiary's time abroad was spent overseeing the work 
of subordinate sales support analysts. Counsel explains that 40% of the beneficiary's time was 
allotted to assigning tasks to the sales support analysts, whose job it was to conduct research 
regarding each prospective client's business plan, IT requirements, and expectations of the 
petitioner's offered solutions. Counsel states that another 40% of the beneficiary's time was spent 
reviewing the work performed by the sales support analysts to determine the sales proposals that best 
fit each prospective client, and the remaining 20% of his time was spent developing sales and 
marketing tools to be used by the sales support analysts when they visit the client sites. 
While counsel's explanations provide a more telling overview of the beneficiary's employment 
abroad, the AAO finds that neither his explanations nor the evidence of record establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying capacity. First, the AAO does not agree with the 
director's findings that the record lacks a sufficient description of job duties. Rather, the AAO finds 
the petitioner's statements to be sufficiently revealing as to the beneficiary's tasks and responsibilities 
during his employment abroad. That being said, it appears that the beneficiary's employment 
consisted of a mix of tasks, some of which cannot be classified as being within a qualifying capacity. 
As such, it is of utmost importance that the petitioner establish with sufficient clarity how much of 
the beneficiary's time was spent performing qualifying duties versus the non-qualifying ones. 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 
10 1 (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 International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 
(Comm. 1988). 
While the AAO recognizes the petitioner's attempt to account for the beneficiary's time, the fact that 
the percentage of time was assigned to broad categories which encompass both qualifying and non- 
qualifying job duties, rather than to specific job duties, precludes the AAO from being able to gauge 
whether the primary portion of the beneficiary's time was spent performing tasks of a qualifying 
nature. For instance, providing leadership in global sales opportunities involved creating sales 
proposals, which is indicative of a task necessary to provide a service and therefore not of a 
qualifying nature. Additionally, while the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary's leadership role 
entailed overseeing a team of three to six employees, the record lacks sufficient information to 
establish that these employees are supervisory, professional, or managerial. The fact that the 
beneficiary's supervisory job duties have been sufficiently stressed warrants a full discussion of the 
qualifications of the beneficiary's subordinates and whether they can be deemed supervisory, 
professional, or managerial. The AAO cannot make any assumptions regarding these key issues 
without sufficient information and corroborating documentation. 
Additionally, assisting in solution definition, a category to which 40% of the beneficiary's time 
abroad was allotted, poses similar problems, as a significant portion of the tasks included in this 
category also require that the beneficiary play a supervisory role in working with sales support 
analysts. As the petitioner has not established that sales support analysts can be deemed supervisory, 
professional, or managerial, the AAO cannot conclude that any time spent overseeing their work can 
be deemed as qualifying. 
 Furthermore, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary was directly 
involved in communicating with onsite account sales teams and writing up client proposals, which 
are tasks necessary to provide a service and therefore non-qualifying. 
Next, the AAO will address the beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment, which is plagued with 
similar shortfalls as those discussed above in relation to the beneficiary's employment abroad. With 
regard to the 30% of the beneficiary's time that would be allotted to directing sales and supervising a 
sales team, the petitioner has not established that the sales team is comprised of supervisory, 
professional, or managerial personnel. The petitioner also stated that the beneficiary would lead 
sales presentations and proposals, which are non-qualifying tasks. While the petitioner stated that a 
portion of the beneficiary's time spent in this category would be attributed to using his discretion in 
making decisions, which entails choosing clients, and selecting the right pricing and solution to 
individual clients' problems, it is unclear how much of the beneficiary's time would be specifically 
devoted to making these decisions. 
With regard to the second category-profitable growth of global delivery practice-the petitioner 
again focused on the beneficiary's discretionary authority in making decisions regarding pricing, 
staff allocation, and hiring. However, it is unclear how the discretionary authority in the capacity of 
this category is distinguished from the discretionary authority in the context of the above category. 
Additionally, although the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary would forecast growth of the 
global delivery practice and work within a given budget, specific tasks were not provided to explain 
how the beneficiary will carry out his role of ensuring the growth of this practice. Reciting the 
beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the 
regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 
0 204.5(j)(5). 
Additionally, the petitioner failed to establish that the tasks associated with building the global 
delivery community, the third category, are within a qualifying capacity. The petitioner stated that 
the beneficiary's tasks would include developing talent, planning careers, and counseling staff who 
work with the global delivery practice. While these tasks may be essential for the purpose of 
building a strong work force, it is unclear how they can be deemed qualifying, as they require the 
beneficiary's direct involvement in the oversight and training of employees who have not been 
established as being supervisory, professional, or managerial. 
Lastly, while counsel cites prior AAO decisions in an effort to support his assertions, both of the 
cited cases were unpublished and therefore are not binding on USCIS employees in the 
administration of the Act. 
Accordingly, in view of the above, the AAO concludes that the record lacks evidence establishing 
that the beneficiary's subordinates, either abroad or in his proposed position with the U.S. entity, 
were and would be supervisory, professional, or managerial. Additionally, the petitioner has failed 
to assign the percentage of time that was and would be spent specifically in the performance of the 
non-qualifying tasks that are incorporated in the descriptions of the beneficiary's foreign and 
proposed employment. Therefore, the AAO cannot conclude that the primary portion of the 
beneficiary's time during his employment abroad and during his proposed employment with the U.S. 
entity has been and would be spent working in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Page 9 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's 
enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), afd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. The 
petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.