remanded EB-1C Case: Food Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 26, 2025 In Re: 36721993 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a food services company, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary in the position 
of "plant manager" 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 )(1 )(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 record did not 
establish that he Beneficiary's employment abroad was in a managerial capacity.1 The matter is now 
before us on appeal pursuant to 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
the Director did not correctly assess the evidence regarding the Beneficiary's foreign employment in 
a managerial capacity. We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for 
entry of a new decision consistent with the analysis below. 
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 
1 The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary' s position abroad fits the definition of managerial capacity and does not claim 
that the Beneficiary was employed in an executive capacity. 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted earlier, the Director's decision did not adequately analyze the record concerning the 
Petitioner's claim 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity for at least one 
year. 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). The Director noted that during the 
Beneficiary's period of employment abroad, he held two different positions - first as regional 
manufacturing strategy manager and then as continuous improvement manager. The Director pointed 
out that the record is inconsistent as to the specific dates of the Beneficiary's period of employment in 
the latter position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges and explains those discrepancies, asserting that they are not 
material in this matter. We agree, given that the Petitioner does not claim, nor does the record show 
that the Beneficiary held the latter position for at least one year prior to his departure in 2021. 2 As 
such, the Petitioner's ability to demonstrate that the Beneficiary met the one-year foreign employment 
requirement rests solely on evidence that pertains to his initial position as regional manufacturing 
strategy manager. Although this role is the main focus of the Director's decision, the Director did not 
adequately consider whether the position in question - that of regional manufacturing strategy 
manager - met the entirety of the four-prong definition of managerial capacity. See section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
To be eligible for immigrant visa classification as a multinational manager, the Petitioner must show 
that the Beneficiary performed the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at 
section 101(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's position 
abroad meets all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial position. 
In this matter, the Director focused primarily on the Beneficiary's job duties and on the duties and 
educational levels of his subordinates. However, the Director did not adequately consider whether the 
Beneficiary's position as regional manufacturing strategy manager meets the first prong of the 
statutory definition, which states that to be deemed to have worked in a managerial capacity, the 
Beneficiary must have "manage[ d] the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization." Section 101(a)(44)(A)(i). Here, while the evidence shows that the 
Beneficiary's position involved some level of personnel management and was therefore consistent 
with section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the Act, it is unclear whether the position met the 
requirements of the first prong of this definition. The Director did not discuss this critical factor in 
the denial; nor did the request for evidence, which preceded the denial, ask the Petitioner to provide 
relevant evidence, such as an organizational chart(s) or a description of the foreign organization's 
staffing and management hierarchies, to show what and whom the Beneficiary managed in his position 
as regional manufacturing strategy manager and where that position fits within the management 
2 The Petitioner maintains that the position of continuous improvement manager meets the statutory definition of 
managerial capacity. See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act (defining "managerial capacity"). 
2 
I 
structure of the foreign entity's organizational hierarchy. Without this relevant information, we are 
unable to gauge the organizational placement of a regional manufacturing strategy manager and 
therefore we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary managed a department, subdivision, function, 
or component of the organization, as claimed. Id. 
Although the record contains two organizational charts depicting the Beneficiary as production 
manager and project manager on the "Pavillion Project Team," both charts list the I 
manufacturing plant as the location of these respective positions, which the record indicates pertained 
to the Beneficiary's role as continuous improvement manager. In other words, these charts do not 
pertain to the Beneficiary's role as regional manufacturing strategy manager, and as such, they do not 
offer relevant information about the organizational placement and management level of a regional 
manufacturing strategy manager within the context of a complex organizational hierarchy comprised 
of managers at various levels and thousands of employees. 
Notwithstanding the noted evidentiary deficiencies, the Director did not specifically discuss the first 
prong of the statutory definition of managerial capacity, nor did the previously issued RFE ask for 
organizational charts or other relevant evidence to determine whether the Beneficiary's position as 
regional manufacturing strategy manager involved primarily managing "the organization, or a 
department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization." Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i). 
Accordingly, we will remand the matter so that a new request for evidence can be issued thereby 
providing the Petitioner an opportunity to address the previously noted evidentiary deficiencies and 
for entry of a new decision. The Director should request any additional evidence warranted and allow 
the Petitioner to submit such evidence within a reasonable period of time. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3