remanded EB-1C Case: E-Commerce

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8999499 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 4, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Executive or Manager 
The Petitioner, an electronic commerce company, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a 
"Technical Business Developed I 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, or that she 
would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision did not provide adequate reasoning or support 
for the conclusions reached. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will remand the matter to the 
Director for further consideration and entry of a new decision . 
I. LAW 
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. § 204.5G)(3). 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAP A CITY 
As noted, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad, and would be employed in the United States, in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has been and would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages 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. 
A. Withdrawal of Director's Decision 
The record reflects that the Petitioner consistently indicated that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
as a function manager and would serve as a function manager in the United States. 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 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The Director concluded that the record "does not show that [the Beneficiary] manages either personnel 
or a particular function." However, we agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the Director's decision 
contains insufficient reasoning and analysis to support that conclusion. The record reflects that, in 
response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner provided a 24-page letter from human resources 
describing the Beneficiary's current U.S. position and previous role in India, as well as separate letters 
from her current U.S. manager and former manager abroad. In the decision, the Director did not 
reference the detailed job descriptions provided in these documents or identify any specific 
deficiencies with respect to the duties described. Instead, the Director broadly referred to "the position 
descriptions as a whole" in support of his adverse conclusion that the foreign and U.S. positions are 
not in a managerial capacity. An officer must folly explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in 
order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity 
for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 
786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must folly explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow 
the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
The remainder of the decision addresses whether the Petitioner established "that the Beneficiary 
supervises and controls the work of others over whom she has the authority to hire, fire or recommend 
for other personnel actions." However, as noted, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary has been 
and would be employed as a function manager and did not claim she is eligible for the requested 
classification based upon her supervision and control of other personnel, or her hiring and firing 
authority. 
2 
For these reasons, we find that the Director did not adequately analyze the evidence submitted in 
support of the Petitioner's claims that she was employed abroad and would be employed in the United 
States, as a function manager. Accordingly, the Director's decision is withdrawn. 
B. Basis for Remand 
Although the Director's decision is withdrawn, the evidence ofrecord is not sufficient to establish that 
the Beneficiary has been or will be employed in a managerial capacity as a function manager. 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director for further review and entry of a new 
decision. 
As noted, 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 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that 
a beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(1) the function is 
a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the 
beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; (4) the beneficiary will act at 
a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the 
beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
Here, while the Petitioner has submitted detailed position descriptions, there is insufficient explanation 
as to how the Petitioner's roles abroad and in the U.S. have required her to manage "a clearly defined 
activity." Further, based on the deficiencies discussed below, we cannot determine whether she acts 
at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function( s) managed. 
With respect to her U.S. role as a "technical business developer," the Petitioner claims that the 
Beneficiary is "a key member of the ,__ __________ ___. Technical Business Development 
Organization" and thatl I Technical Business Development is essential to the petitioning 
rganil ation. However, the Petitioner has not submitted an organizational chart which depicts the 
Technical Business Development Organization," nor has it shown how that organizational 
function or component fits into the larger organization. The submitted U.S. organizational charts 
depict only five employees, including the Beneficiary, her indirect reports, her direct manager, and 
her manager's direct manager. 
It is evident based on the size of the petitioning organization that these are not the only employees 
working in the0Technical Business Development organization. In fact, the Petitioner indicates 
that the Beneficiary is part of "a pool" of technical business development managers. The Petitioner 
cannot meet its burden to establish that the Beneficiary acts in a senior position with respect to the 
function if it does fully identify who is involved with the function and how it is structured. The 
submitted charts do not identify the hierarchy above her, or any similarly employed lateral staff and 
their indirect reports. If the clearly defined activity she is claimed to manage overlaps with those in 
lateral positions, then additional explanation would be required to demonstrate how she nevertheless 
manages that function and holds a senior role within the hierarchy with respect to that function. 
3 
For example, the U.S. organizational chart submitted in response to the RFE states that the 
Beneficiary's area ofresponsibility isObusiness development for the'~---------~ 
I I" but it has not been established whether other technical business developers also work within 
this same vertical, nor is it clear whether her supervisor, who manages the "Visual Devices vertical" 
for D business development, has overlapping accountability for the Beneficiary's area of 
responsibility. Since it dp.e.s ..... npt appear that the Beneficiary's functional responsibility extends to 
business development for L_Jas a whole, additional clarification of her specific activity or function 
1s necessary. 
The organizational chart depicting the Beneficiary's role in the foreign entity is similar in that it lists 
only the Beneficiary, her indirect reports, her direct manager and her manager's direct manager. The 
Petitioner described the Beneficiary as a "key member" of the foreign entity's 1 I 
and one of "a pool of Technical Business Development Managers," but did not provide a chart 
depicting the I t team as a whole or information distinguishing the Beneficiary's area of 
functional responsibility from others on the team who may have the same job title. 
As the Director did not sufficiently address the Petitioner's claims and supporting evidence or provide 
notice of the evidentiary deficiencies addressed herein, the matter will be remanded for further review 
and entry of a new decision. At a minimum, the Director should request expanded organization charts 
and any other evidence deemed necessary to clarify the Beneficiary's placement within the 
organizational hierarchy and within the scope of the function managed. 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. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4