remanded EB-1C Case: Fleet Management Software

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I- INC . 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 30, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of fleet management software and systems, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its engineering manager under the first preference immigrant classification for 
multinational executives or managers. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not establish 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, or would be employed in the United States, in a managerial 
capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not give due consideration to the submitted 
evidence or to its claim that the Beneficiary's positions in the United States and abroad both involve the 
management of an essential function. 
Upon de novo review, we will remand the matter to the Director for further consideration and entry of a 
new decision . 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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). 
Matter of I- Inc. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily 
supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 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. 
Here, the Petitioner states the Beneficiary qualifies for the benefit sought because he will manage an 
essential function in the United States, and because he managed the same function for the Petitioner's 
foreign parent company. 
Upon review of the petition and evidence, we find that the Director did not adequately review the 
Beneficiary's eligibility as a function manager, despite acknowledging that the Petitioner articulated 
a function manager claim. For example, in analyzing the Beneficiary's U.S. employment, the denial 
decision indicates that "[ t ]he petitioner responded [ to a request for evidence] with a letter stating that 
the beneficiary manages an essential function within the organization and submitted a list of daily 
duties" but goes on to state that the duties "do not establish that the beneficiary supervises and controls 
the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees." The Director also briefly 
addressed one of the submitted job descriptions but did not take into account other evidence describing 
the Beneficiary's duties and the function he is claimed to manage. 
Accordingly, 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 of M-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). 
Notwithstanding the Director's lack of a complete analysis, the record is currently insufficient to 
establish that the Beneficiary was and would be employed in a managerial capacity, as claimed. The 
definition of managerial capacity has two parts. First, a petitioner must show that the beneficiary will 
perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 
WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). Second, a petitioner must prove that the beneficiary will be 
primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
company's other employees. See, e.g., Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
Here, the Petitioner's statements focus on the Beneficiary's authority to manage the company's 
relationship with the network of contractors and vendors who install and warehouse its products, and 
the record reflects that he has discretionary authority over such matters as contracting and releasing 
these providers and developing business processes for them to follow. However, whether a beneficiary 
is an "activity" or "function" manager turns in part on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden 
of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial. See Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 
2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). The submitted descriptions for the U.S. and foreign positions (which 
the Petitioner claims are very similar) include duties that suggest the Beneficiary's involvement in 
product design, sales, training, and other activities that appear to be outside the scope of managing the 
2 
Matter of I- Inc. 
company's vendor and contractor network. For example, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's 
role requires him to "engage with the customers as the product expert throughout the installation cycle 
to ensure success" and notes that "his duties require involvement in every stage of the customer 
relationship; from prospective customer engagement, customer acquisition through post­
implementation relationship management." The Beneficiary also appears to be solely responsible for 
providing training to employees of the vendors and contractors retained by the Petitioner's group. We 
cannot determine that these duties are managerial in nature. 
Although the Petitioner provided a broad breakdown of the Beneficiary's job duties in response to a 
request for evidence (RFE), the duties were stated in very general terms and were not clearly consistent 
with the initial job description. As a result, the Petitioner's descriptions of the Beneficiary's job duties 
do not sufficiently establish what proportion of the duties is managerial in nature, and what proportion 
is non-managerial. See Republic ofTranskei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991). 
In addition, while the Beneficiary is not required to directly supervise employees as a function 
manager, we note that the Petitioner explained that he coordinates with "internal departments" to 
resolve issues and complete projects, which suggests that he at least receives support from the 
Petitioner's own employees. The Petitioner claimed to have seven employees at the time of filing in 
May 2017. Its quarterly wage report summaries show that it had six employees in the first half of 
2017, but employed only the Beneficiary and one other individual at the end of 2017. It is unclear 
whether or how this decrease in resources would have impacted the Beneficiary's role or who supports 
the Beneficiary with administrative duties related to the engineering and vendor relationship function. 
On remand, the Director shall consider the arguments and evidence submitted by the Petitioner and 
analyze whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States, 
as a function manager. The Director should request any additional evidence deemed necessary and 
allow the Petitioner reasonable time to respond. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Director's decision did not adequately evaluate the Beneficiary's eligibility as a function 
manager in the United States and abroad, we will remand the matter to the Director for further 
consideration. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of I-Inc., ID# 5624668 (AAO Aug. 30, 2019) 
3