remanded EB-1C Case: Information Technology Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18019167 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 17, 2021 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner , describing itself as a business information technology consulting firm, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as a business relationship manager in the United States 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition; however, they did not clearly indicate 
the grounds upon which they were denying the petition. As noted by the Petitioner, the Director 
ambiguously used past and present tenses in describing the Beneficiary's duties and position, while 
also largely emphasizing her position abroad prior to her entry into the United States as a 
nonimmigrant in 2016. However, the Director provided little detail or analysis regarding the 
Beneficiary's proposed managerial position in the United States while concluding that the Petitioner 
had not established "that the beneficiary has been and will be employed in a managerial capacity." 
The Director's statements and analysis leave substantial ambiguity as to whether they determined that 
the Beneficiary would not act in a managerial capacity in the United States, that she had not acted in 
a managerial capacity abroad, or both. 
In addition, the Director stated that "the beneficiary's duties while employed by the foreign entity and 
a majority of [her] proposed duties have involved and will involve the operational activities of the 
petitioning company." Again, this statement by the Director leaves question as to whether they are 
discussing the Beneficiary's former foreign employment, or her proposed employment in the United 
States, since they discuss her employment with the "foreign entity," but also her "proposed duties" 
and what her duties "will" involve. Further, the Director provided little explanation as to why the 
Beneficiary's duties, whether abroad or in the United States, were considered operational. 
Furthermore, the Director appeared to acknowledge that the Beneficiary supervised professional 
employees and that she was "a supervisor within the organization," both abroad and in the United 
States, but proceeded to conclude that since she did not oversee an "essential function" she did not 
qualify. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that this analysis was in error, stating that it may also 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility based on her management of a "department, subdivision, 
function, or component of the organization." The Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary was 
employed in the United States, and employed abroad, as a personnel manager with authority over 
subordinate supervisors and professionals. Again, we agree with the Petitioner that it is not required 
to demonstrate that the Beneficiary oversaw an essential function of the organization when it asserts 
that she qualified abroad, and qualifies in the United States, as a personnel manager. 
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. Contrary 
to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly states that a "first line 
supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's 
supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Id. If a beneficiary directly 
supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those 
employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(l)(ii)(B)(3). Here, the Director appears to acknowledge that the Beneficiary oversees 
subordinate supervisors and professionals in the United States, and that she formerly did so abroad, 
but appears to have denied the petition based on the requirements of a function manager. 
As such, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for entry of a new decision. 
Specifically, the Director must clearly articulate each basis of its denial; namely, whether the Petitioner 
established that the Beneficiary acted as a personnel manager abroad and/or that she would act as a 
personnel manager in the United States, if applicable. Further, to the extent required, the Petitioner 
should analyze each ground for denial separately to avoid confusion, and such analysis should be 
consistent with the reasoning set forth in this decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2