remanded EB-1C Case: Information Technology Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17017220 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 08, 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 project manager 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, concluding the record did not establish, 
as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity prior to 
his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary was employed abroad as a personnel manager 
overseeing subordinate professionals . In addition, the Petitioner submits additional documentary 
evidence on appeal meant to demonstrate that the Beneficiary acted as a personnel manager abroad . 
Upon de nova review, the Director did not provide sufficient analysis specific to the Beneficiary's 
asserted employment as a personnel manager abroad . For instance, the Director indicated that the 
Petitioner did not "show that the beneficiary manages an essential function within the organization 
abroad." However , the Petitioner does not assert that the Beneficiary qualified as a function manager 1 
abroad, but as a personnel manager supervising professional subordinates. Similarly, the Director 
stated that the Beneficiary's foreign duties were "not of a managerial function," but did not provide 
specific analysis of his asserted foreign duties or articulate how they were not managerial. 
Further, the Petitioner has submitted new evidence on appeal material to the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
As our review is limited to the evidence on the record at the time of the Director 's adjudication, the 
Director is the more appropriate party to consider this new evidence and its impact on the Beneficiary's 
eligibility. Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for 
1 The statutory definition of "manageria l capacity" allows for both "personne l 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(J) . 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. 
consideration of the new evidence and the entry of a new decision. See Matter of Soriano, 19 l&N 
Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2