remanded EB-1C Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 27, 2024 In Re: 34815336 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a privately owned micro-school , seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
president 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 that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial capacity, or that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity.1 The matter is now before us on appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter afChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will remand the matter to the Director for further action and entry of a new decision, consistent 
with the following discussion. 
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. § 204.5U)(3). 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary has been or will be employed in an executive capacity. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
As noted, the Director denied the petition on multiple grounds, concluding 
that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and would be employed in the United States, 
in a managerial capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked relevant evidence, failed to provide a 
coherent explanation of the reasons for denial of the petition, reached erroneous conclusions of fact 
and law, and did not apply the preponderance of the evidence standard in adjudicating the petition. 
While we cannot sustain the appeal based on the record as presently constituted, we will withdraw the 
Director's decision and remand the matter for further consideration and entry of a new decision, in 
accordance with the discussion below. 
A. Beneficiary's Foreign Employment 
A petition for a multinational manager or executive must 
be accompanied by evidence that the 
beneficiary has been employed outside the United States in a managerial or executive capacity by a 
qualifying entity within the same multinational organization for at least one year in the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A). 
The Petitioner initially submitted a brief description of the Beneficiary's position abroad, indicating 
that she served as the foreign entity's director and had two subordinate employees. In a request for 
evidence (RFE), the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of this short paragraph but 
indicated it was insufficient to establish that she had been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The Director requested additional evidence, including but not limited to an 
explanation of her daily tasks, the foreign entity's organizational chart, and payroll records for the 
Beneficiary and her subordinates. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a signed statement from the foreign entity's sole director and 
legal representative confirming the Beneficiary's managerial duties, a list of the foreign entity's 
employers and contractors including their duties, salary, educational credentials, and dates of hire, a 
copy of the foreign entity's previously submitted organizational chart, payroll records for the period 
from October 2023 through February 2024, and copies of letters and documentation regarding the 
Beneficiary's duties that had previously been drafted in support of a nonimmigrant visa petition filed 
on her behalf. The Petitioner also resubmitted an expert opinion letter that had been submitted in 
support of the petition. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad as a manager. However, the decision does not sufficiently explain the basis for 
this determination. Specifically, the Director stated as follows: 
USCIS requested additional evidence to explain if the [B]eneficiary performed abroad 
in a hybrid capacity. The [P]etitioner provided the same statement. The evidence does 
not show that the [B]eneficiary performed in an executive and managerial capacity 
2 
abroad because it does not follow the specific requirements that a hybrid position 
reqmres. 
In reaching this determination it does not appear that the Director considered the documentation 
submitted in response to the RFE. Specifically, the Petitioner claims on appeal that the Director's 
determination is "categorically incorrect," noting that in response to the RFE, it submitted a new 
statement from the foreign entity's sole director and legal representative, in addition to other 
documentary evidence. The Petitioner further challenges the Director's determination that the 
Beneficiary's position "does not follow the specific requirements that a hybrid requires," maintaining 
that at all times throughout the record, it claimed that the Beneficiary's position was primarily 
managerial in nature with no reference to executive duties. Finally, the Petitioner argues that the 
Director erred by not considering or discussing the expert opinion letter, as well as the evidence 
pertaining to the foreign entity's employees and contractors, the foreign entity's organizational 
structure, and the Beneficiary's position therein. 
Here, we agree with the Petitioner's assertions. First, the Director erroneously evaluated the 
Beneficiary's position abroad as a hybrid position, when at all times the Petitioner maintained that the 
Beneficiary's position was managerial in nature. In addition, the Petitioner provided letters of support, 
an expert opinion letter, an organizational chart, payroll records, and documentary evidence pertaining 
to the foreign entity's employees and contractors and the positions they hold, none of which was 
discussed or evaluated in the decision denying the petition. The Director did not clearly articulate 
grounds for denial and properly analyze the evidence submitted in support of the claim that the 
Beneficiary's foreign employment was managerial. The Director must fully explain the reasons for 
denying a petition 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 fully explain the reasons for denying a 
motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
On remand, the Director should analyze the evidence to determine whether the record sufficiently 
demonstrates the Beneficiary's foreign employment was managerial in nature as defined at section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(A). If the Director concludes that the Petitioner's 
documentation does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial 
capacity, the decision should discuss the insufficiencies in the evidence and adequately explain the 
reasons for ineligibility. 
B. Beneficiary's U.S. Employment 
A petition for a multinational manager or executive must be accompanied by evidence that the 
beneficiary has been employed outside the United States in a managerial or executive capacity by a 
qualifying entity for at least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition, and that 
the beneficiary is corning to work in the United States for the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate 
of the foreign employer. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
The Petitioner initially submitted a description of the Beneficiary's position, indicating that she was 
responsible for reviewing and analyzing the Petitioner's general operations, overseeing and directing 
subordinate managerial personnel, and analyzing financial statements and operation reports to ensure 
3 
the Petitioner's organization is operating efficiently and at full capacity. The organizational chart 
submitted depicted the Beneficiary at the top of the organizational hierarchy, overseeing a guide 
manager who in turn oversaw four guides (teachers). The chart also depicted a general manager 
parallel to the Beneficiary, and further indicated that an administrator and administrative assistant 
would be hired in 2024. In addition, the Petitioner submitted details regarding the duties, salaries, and 
educational credentials of its employees, as well as copies of payroll and tax documentation. 
In the RFE, the Director determined that the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's duties was 
insufficient to establish that she would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The 
Director requested additional evidence, including but not limited to an explanation of her daily tasks, 
the Petitioner's organizational chart, and payroll records and tax documents for the Beneficiary and 
her subordinates. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a new statement of duties for the Beneficiary's position, claiming 
that she devoted 15% of her time to personnel management, 20% of her time to directing the activities 
of the guide manager, 25% of her time to directing the financial activities of the company, l 0% of her 
time to overseeing and approving all risk management, legal, and representation activities, 10% of her 
time creating and implementing marketing strategies, 15% of her to time evaluating the school's 
administrative and operational policies, and 5% of her time collaborating with the Petitioner's owners 
to articulate operational strategies. In addition, the Petitioner resubmitted its organizational chart and 
payroll and tax documentation, noting that this documentation had been included in its initial 
submission but had not been considered by the Director. 
In denying the petition, the Director found deficiencies in the organizational chart, noting that the chart 
did not depict who the Beneficiary reported to, and further contained inconsistencies regarding the 
Petitioner's claimed number of employees when comparing the chart to payroll records. The Director 
further noted that the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary simultaneously manages both the 
Petitioner and foreign entity created unresolved discrepancies with regard to the Beneficiary's claimed 
U.S. duties. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that it provided sufficient explanations for the issues 
raised by the Director and that the Director's conclusions to the contrary were erroneous. 
As noted earlier, we find that the Director's decision did not adequately explain the deficiencies in the 
evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786. Here, the Director 
did not analyze the organizational chart and position descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed 
subordinates and the manner in which the Beneficiary's oversight of these employees would be 
managerial in nature. Rather, the Director focused on the Petitioner's failure to demonstrate who the 
Beneficiary reported to in the Petitioner's organization, as well as discrepancies regarding its claimed 
number of employees. The Director also vaguely referred to the Petitioner's assertion that the 
Beneficiary would devote 100% of her time to managing the U.S. entity while simultaneously 
managing the foreign entity as a basis for denial. 
Upon review, the Director's decision does not address any substantive inconsistencies, or potential 
overlap of duties, between the descriptions of the U.S. and foreign positions, nor does the decision 
evaluate the actual position descriptions at all. The Director's conclusory finding that the evidence in 
the record undermines the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary will devote all of her time to 
managing the U.S. entity did not provide an adequate basis for denial of the petition. 
4 
Moreover, the Director did not provide the Petitioner with adequate notice of evidentiary deficiencies 
that are material to the issues on appeal, particularly relating to the U.S. company's staffing and 
organizational strncture. The Director's analysis appears to have focused on inconsistencies in the 
organizational chart when compared to payroll records as well as contradictory statements regarding 
the extent of the Beneficiary's role in the foreign entity as opposed to a review of all relevant evidence. 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS considers the totality of the evidence when 
examining whether a beneficiary has been and would be employed in a managerial capacity. This 
review should include evidence relating to the company's organizational strncture, the duties of a 
beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from 
performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to 
understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
Notwithstanding the lack of analysis, the record is currently insufficient to establish that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity for the U.S. entity, as claimed. 
"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 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Upon review of the description of duties, we note that many of the Beneficiary's duties do not relate 
to supervision but rather appear to involve performing operational and administrative tasks, such as 
analyzing finances and developing and overseeing marketing campaigns. The record as constituted 
appears insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial duties, 
as required, rather than the operational and administrative tasks necessary to continue the Petitioner's 
operations. The Petitioner does not include sufficient detail or explanation of the Beneficiary's 
activities in the course of her daily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of 
the employment. 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). 
The Petitioner must adequately address the above issues, but the Director's decision did not give the 
Petitioner an adequate opportunity to do so. On remand, the Director should fully evaluate the 
evidence submitted by the Petitioner to date, including the Petitioner's appeal, to determine whether 
the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Director's decision is withdrawn. On remand, the Director may issue a 
new request for evidence allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to provide additional evidence 
relevant to the issues discussed above, and any other evidence deemed necessary to demonstrate 
eligibility for the classification sought, before issuing a new decision. 
5 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
6