remanded EB-1C Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12362304 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB . 12, 2021 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Manager or Executive 
The Petitioner , a provider of accounting and other professional services , seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as a tax manager under the first-preference , immigrant classification for multinational 
managers and executives . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition . The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment - or her work abroad - in 
the required managerial or executive capacity . The Director also found that the Petitioner willfully 
misrepresented the nature of the Beneficiary 's foreign employment. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the 
matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. MULTINATIONAL MANAGERS AND EXECUTIVES 
A petitioner for a multinational manager or executive must demonstrate that it has been doing business 
for at least one year and that it intends to employ a beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D) , (5). A petitioner 
must also establish that , in the three years before a beneficiary's nonimmigrant admi ssion to the United 
States , the petitioner , an affiliate , or a subsidiary employed the beneficiary abroad for at least one year 
in a managerial or executive capacity. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B) , 
(C). 
II. PROPOSED EMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STA TES 
The Petitioner asserts its proposed employment of the Beneficiary in the United States and her prior 
foreign work in a managerial capacity. The term "managerial capacity" means employment that would 
"primarily " involve: 1) managing an organization or a department, subdivision , function , or 
component of it; 2) supervising and controlling the work of other supervisory , professional , or 
managerial employees, or managing an essential function within an organization, department, or 
subdivision; 3) having authority to hire and fire subordinates or to recommend those and other 
personnel actions, or, if no other employee is directly supervised, functioning at a senior level within 
an organizational hierarchy or regarding a function managed; and 4) exercising discretion over the 
daily operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(44)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
A petitioner for a multinational manager must demonstrate that a beneficiary's proposed employment 
would meet all four elements of the definition of "managerial capacity." A petitioner must also 
establish that a beneficiary would "primarily" perform managerial-level duties, as opposed to 
operational tasks. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
The definition of "managerial capacity" allows for management of personnel or essential functions. 
The Petitioner does not assert the Beneficiary's management of essential functions either in the United 
States or abroad. We will therefore consider her proposed and foreign employment only as a personnel 
manager. A personnel manager must primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, 
managerial, or professional workers. Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). "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 
10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
When determining the managerial nature of a beneficiary's proposed employment, USCIS examines 
the proposed job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) (requiring a petitioner to "clearly describe the 
duties to be performed by the alien"). USCIS also considers: the nature and structure of the U.S. 
business; the existence of other employees who could relieve a beneficiary from performing 
operational duties; the job duties of subordinates; and other factors potentially affecting a beneficiary's 
business role. 
The record indicates the Petitioner's employment of the Beneficiary in the offered position of tax 
manager since her 2016 transfer to the United States in L- lA nonimmigrant visa status. 1 Although 
the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary's proposed employment in a managerial capacity, the record 
indicates the Director's consideration of whether she would work in an executive capacity. 
Multinational managers must meet different requirements than multinational executives. Compare 
section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act (defining the term "managerial capacity") with section 101(a)(44)(B) 
of the Act (defining the term "executive capacity"). When considering the nature of the Beneficiary's 
proposed work, the Director cited requirements for employment in an "executive capacity," not in a 
"managerial capacity." 
1 L-lA visa status allows an intracompany manager or executive to temporarily work for a petitioner in the United States. 
See section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). The requirements for L-IA nonimmigrants and multinational 
managers and executives are similar. But USCIS' approval of the Beneficiary's L-lA status does not require the Agency 
to approve her as a multinational manager. See Matter of Church Scientology Int'/, 19 l&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988) 
(stating that, if eligibility has not been demonstrated, the immigration service need not approve petitions "merely because 
of prior approvals that may have been erroneous") ( citations omitted). 
2 
The Director improperly analyzed the claimed nature of the proposed U.S. employment. We will 
therefore withdraw that portion of the Director's decision. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
As when asserting proposed U.S. employment in a managerial capacity, a petitioner claiming the 
managerial nature of a beneficiary's foreign work must demonstrate that the employment met all four 
elements of the definition of "managerial capacity." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(2). A petitioner must also establish that a beneficiary "primarily" performed managerial­
level duties, as opposed to operational tasks. See Family Inc., 469 F.3d at 1316. 
When determining the managerial nature of a beneficiary's foreign employment, USCIS examines the 
job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) (requiring a petitioner to "clearly describe" job duties). USCIS 
also considers: the nature and structure of the foreign business; the existence of other employees who 
relieved a beneficiary from performing operational duties; the job duties of subordinates; and other 
factors that potentially affected a beneficiary's business role abroad. 
The Petitioner states that, before the Beneficiary's U.S. transfer in August 2016, she worked at the 
Petitioner's affiliate in Canada. The Beneficiary began working for the affiliate in June 2012 as an 
associate. The Petitioner states that she most recently worked for the Canadian firm as a senior 
associate, from June 2013 through May 2015, and as a manager, from June 2015 to June 2016. The 
Petitioner asserts that her last two positions were managerial in nature. 
1. Job Duties 
The Director found the Petitioner's descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties unreliable, 
stating that the descriptions lacked specifics. The Director stated: "Without [providing] specific daily 
duties or tasks performed by the beneficiary, the petitioner impeded USCIS in determining whether 
[her] role for the foreign entity was managerial." See Fedin Bros. Co. Ltd. v Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990). (holding that "[s]pecifics are clearly an 
important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, 
otherwise meeting the definitions [ of the terms] would simply be a matter of reiterating the 
regulations"). 
To support his finding, the Director quoted part of a letter from the Petitioner outlining the positions 
the Beneficiary held at the Canadian affiliate. The Director, however, did not cite other portions of 
the letter detailing the Beneficiary's job duties as both a senior associate and manager. The Director 
also did not refer to a letter from the Canadian affiliate submitted in response to the Director's written 
notice of intent to deny (NOID) the petition. In addition to detailing the duties of the Beneficiary's 
last two positions in Canada, the affiliate's letter provides percentages of time she spent on each duty. 
Thus, the record does not support the Director's finding that the Petitioner provided broad and vague 
descriptions of the Beneficiary's job duties abroad. We will therefore withdraw that finding. 
3 
2. Structure and Staffing 
The Director found the affiliate's organizational charts to be inaccurate and unreliable. The Director 
stated: "Every individual depicted on the organizational chart was a manager." 
The organizational charts show that, as a senior associate and manager, the Beneficiary directly 
supervised at least six senior associates, who in tum oversaw six associates. One chart, however, 
shows that - during the Beneficiary's tenure as a senior associate - three associates, three contractors, 
and a coordinator did not supervise anyone. Another chart indicates that, when the Beneficiary worked 
as a manager, the same positions again did no supervising. Additional non-supervisors on the second 
chart include a manager assistant and a billing assistant. Thus, the record does not support the 
Director's finding that the affiliate's organizational charts depict only managers. We will therefore 
withdraw that finding. 
The Director also questioned the claimed managerial nature of the Beneficiary's foreign work based 
on information she provided on prior U.S. nonimmigrant visa applications. In applications submitted 
in 2016 and 2019, when the Beneficiary purportedly worked as a manager, she described her then­
current position as "tax accountant," "provid[ing] corporate tax compliance and consulting services." 
In an application in 2012, during the Beneficiary's claimed tenure as an associate, she stated that she 
was an "accountant/tax specialist," also providing "corporate tax compliance and consulting" services. 
The Director found the information on the visa applications inconsistent with the claimed managerial 
nature of the Beneficiary's foreign employment. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988) 
(requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies). At the time of the 2019 visa application, however, the Beneficiary 
worked for the Petitioner in the United States. Thus, the information on the 2019 application regarding 
her then-current employment does not describe her work abroad. Also, the information on the 2012 
visa application appears largely consistent with the duties of an associate as provided by the Petitioner 
in its NOID response. We will therefore withdraw the Director's findings that information on the 
2012 and 2019 visa applications conflicts with the Beneficiary's claimed duties abroad at those 
respective times. 
The 2016 visa application does not describe the Beneficiary's position as a "manager," nor does the 
application indicate her supervision of others. Thus, the information on the 2016 application casts 
doubt on the claimed managerial nature of her foreign employment. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
at 591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies ofrecord). The record, however, also contains 
evidence supporting the claimed managerial nature of the Beneficiary's work in Canada at that time. 
The record includes company letters, organizational charts, and payroll information stating her 
position as a senior associate in 2015 and as a manager from 2015 to 2016. 
The Beneficiary, however, has not explained why she identified her position on the 2016 visa 
application as "tax accountant" rather than as "manager," or why the application did not indicate her 
purported supervision of others. We will therefore withdraw the Director's finding regarding the 
nature of the Beneficiary's foreign employment and remand the matter for additional fact-finding. 
4 
On remand, the Director should ask the Petitioner to provide a statement from the Beneficiary or other 
evidence explaining her description of her Canadian position on the 2016 visa application. The 
Director may ask the Petitioner to submit additional supporting documentation from the 2016 
application. The Director should also consider the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment in the 
claimed managerial capacity. See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
IV. THE PETITIONER'S ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION 
A petitioner must certify under penalty of perjury that the information in a petition is true and correct. 
All USCIS decisions should include specific findings and conclusions on any material issues of law 
or fact, including findings of fraud or material misrepresentation. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see 
also 5 U.S.C. § 557(c). 
Here, the Director found that the Petitioner willfully misrepresented the Beneficiary to be a manager 
in Canada from June 2015 to June 2016. As previously discussed, the Beneficiary's 2016 visa 
application does not describe her as a manager or indicate her supervision of others. Company letters, 
organizational charts, and payroll information, however, indicate that she worked abroad as a manager. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the "perceived inconsistency" between the descriptions of the 
Beneficiary's foreign job duties in the petition and the 2016 visa application. The Petitioner argues 
that the visa application requested only a "brief' description of her duties and that "a tax accountant 
managing the delivery of such services through tiers of subordinate professionals holding 
baccalaureate or higher university degrees is at one and the same time both a tax accountant and a 
manager of professional personnel." 
Because we are remanding the matter for farther fact-finding regarding the nature of the Beneficiary's 
foreign employment, we express no opinion on the Petitioner's alleged misrepresentation. 
If supported by the record, the Director may notify the Petitioner on remand of other potential denial 
grounds. The Director should inform the Petitioner of all applicable issues on remand and afford the 
company a reasonable opportunity to respond. Upon receipt of a timely response, the Director should 
review the entire record and enter a new decision. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The record does not support the Director's denial of the petition. The Director, however, must consider 
the claimed managerial nature of the proposed U.S. employment. Also, the record requires additional 
evidence to determine whether the Petitioner demonstrated the Beneficiary's work abroad in the 
claimed managerial capacity and whether the company willfully misrepresented the nature of her 
foreign employment. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5