remanded EB-1C Case: Aviation And Tourism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 29, 2024 In Re: 32275507 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a private jet and tourism services company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its chief executive officer under the first preference immigrant classification for 
multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently 
transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity or that he would be 
employed in this same capacity in the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with our discussion below. 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or executive 
services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act. 
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). 
The Petitioner indicated that its sole owner and chief executive officer, the Beneficiary, was also the 
president and owner of the foreign employer, a company based in Argentina engaged in providing 
private executive jet charter services. The Petitioner stated the Beneficiary entered the United States 
as an L-lA nonimmigrant intracompany transferee in January 2022 to establish the U.S. affiliate, a 
company engaged in providing tourism and travel services. 
As discussed, the Director denied the petition concluding the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity or that he would be employed 
in this same capacity in the United States. With respect to the Beneficiary's role abroad, the Director 
reasoned the record lacked evidence to demonstrate that his subordinates worked in professional 
positions, "as required by the regulations." In addition, the Director stated that the Beneficiary's 
foreign duty description did not sufficiently establish that he primarily performed executive-level 
duties abroad. The Director also concluded that the foreign employer's organizational structure was 
not "sufficiently complex to warrant executive leadership." In determining that the Beneficiary would 
not be employed in the United States in an executive capacity, the Director again emphasized that the 
submitted evidence did not demonstrate the positions subordinate to the Beneficiary were professional 
and further stated that "no supporting evidence was submitted for [his U.S.] subordinates beyond 
support letters." 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity 
overseeing five direct reports supervising over 30 employees. The Petitioner details the executive­
level decisions the Beneficiary made in establishing the foreign employer in 2012, operational changes 
he made during the coronavirus pandemic, and negotiations and decisions he was involved in, 
including the purchase of jets, addition of travel routes, and use of hangar facilities. The Petitioner 
asserts that it submitted sufficient evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's oversight of a subordinate 
management team and his primary responsibility for establishing the of the foreign employer's goals 
and policies. Likewise, the Petitioner provides similar contentions with respect to his U.S. 
employment indicating that he has been, and would be, employed in an executive capacity. The 
Petitioner further states the Director erred in requiring that it establish the Beneficiary supervised 
professional subordinates, both abroad and in the United States, to qualify as an executive. The 
Petitioner also supplements the record on appeal with supporting documentation reflecting his, and his 
subordinates, performance of tasks within both organizations. 
As a preliminary matter, we agree with the Petitioner that the Director erred in emphasizing that the 
Petitioner must establish he supervised professional subordinates and that he must oversee a 
"complex" organizational hierarchy to demonstrate that he qualified as an executive. The statutory 
definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position. Under the statute, 
a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish the goals and policies" 
of an organization or major component or function thereof. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. To 
show that a beneficiary will "direct the management" of an organization or a major component or 
function of that organization, a petitioner must show how the organization, major component, or 
function is managed and demonstrate that the beneficiary primarily focuses on its broad goals and 
policies, rather than the day-to-day operations of such. An individual will not be deemed an executive 
under the statute simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the organization, 
major component, or function as the owner or sole managerial employee. A beneficiary must also 
2 
exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and receive only "general supervision or 
direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization." Id. 
The applicable law includes no requirement that a beneficiary supervise professional subordinates 1 or 
a complex organizational hierarchy to qualify as an executive. 
Upon review, we conclude that the record has been sufficiently supplemented on appeal to establish 
that the Beneficiary more likely than not acted in an executive capacity abroad. The Petitioner 
submitted a detailed duty description for the Beneficiary describing the specific executive-level duties 
he performed abroad as well as a sufficient organizational chart and credible subordinate duty 
descriptions. The Petitioner further provided supporting documentation reflecting his performance of 
qualifying executive-level tasks and his direction of subordinate management abroad. Therefore, we 
will withdraw the Director's determination with respect to this issue. 
Further, as discussed, the Director erred in requiring that the Beneficiary demonstrate that he 
supervised professional subordinates in the United States to qualify as an executive. We also disagree 
with the Director that "no supporting evidence was submitted for [his U.S.] subordinates beyond 
support letters." For instance, the Petitioner provided supporting documentation, including emails and 
state quarterly tax documentation related to its operations, as well as other evidence related to its 
operations and subordinates. Therefore, the Director should consider this evidence in light of the 
definition of an executive above, and not that of a personnel manager, and determine whether the 
Beneficiary would have primarily performed executive-level duties as of the date the petition was 
filed. 
The Director's erroneous conclusions appear to have heavily influenced the outcome of the decision. 
We will therefore withdraw that decision and remand the matter for a new decision that properly 
considers the evidence of record with respect to the Beneficiary's proposed employment m an 
executive capacity in the United States. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for "personnel managers." Personnel managers are required to 
primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. See section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 
3