remanded EB-1C Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12484108 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 5, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Manager or Executive 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of automotive components and fuel systems, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as IT [Information Technology] manager. The company requests his 
classification under the first-preference, immigrant category for multinational managers and executives . 
See 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 . The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the claimed managerial nature of the Beneficiary's employment abroad 
or his proposed work in the United States . 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. See section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand 
the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis . 
I. MULTINATIONAL MANAGERS AND EXECUTIVES 
A petitioner for a multinational manager or executive must demonstrate that it has been doing business 
for at least one year and that it would employ a beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity . Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204 .5(j)(3)(i)(D), (5). A petitioner 
must also establish that, in the three years before a beneficiary's nonimmigrant admission to the United 
States , the petitioner, an affiliate, or a subsidiary employed the beneficiary abroad for at least one year 
in a managerial or executive capacity. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R . §§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B), 
(C). 
II. PROPOSED U.S. EMPLOYMENT 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director disregarded and misevaluated evidence of the 
Beneficiary's proposed managerial work in the United States . The record , however, shows that the 
Director did not properly notify the Petitioner of this denial ground or afford the company an 
opportunity to respond before the decision's issuance . 
A petitioner must complete and file a petition "with all initial evidence required by applicable 
regulations and other USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] instructions." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )( 1 ). If a petition lacks required initial evidence or does not establish eligibility for a 
requested benefit, USCIS may deny the petition or issue a written request for additional evidence 
(RFE). 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(8)(ii). An RFE must specify "whether initial evidence or additional 
evidence is required, or the bases for the proposed denial sufficient to give the applicant or petitioner 
adequate notice and sufficient information to respond." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8)(iv). 
Here, the Director issued an RFE requesting, in part, additional evidence of the claimed managerial 
nature of the Beneficiary's employment abroad. After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the 
Director denied the petition. The Director found not only that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the 
claimed managerial nature of the Beneficiary's employment abroad, but also that the company did not 
establish that he would work in the claimed managerial capacity in the United States. 
Contrary to regulations, the Director did not notify the Petitioner of the need for additional evidence 
regarding the nature of the proposed U.S. employment or provide sufficient explanation to allow the 
Petitioner to respond. We will therefore withdraw the Director's finding regarding the proposed U.S. 
employment. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The term "managerial capacity" means employment that "primarily" involved: 1) managing an 
organization or a department, subdivision, function, or component of it; 2) supervising and controlling 
the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or managing an essential 
function within an organization, department, or subdivision; 3) having authority to hire and fire 
subordinates or to recommend those and other personnel actions, or, if no other employee is directly 
supervised, functioning at a senior level within an organizational hierarchy or regarding a function 
managed; and 4) exercising discretion over the daily operations of the activity or function for which 
the employee has authority. Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(A); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(2). 
A petitioner for a multinational manager must demonstrate that a beneficiary's employment abroad 
met all four elements of the definition of "managerial capacity." A petitioner must also establish that 
a beneficiary "primarily" performed managerial-level duties, as opposed to operational tasks. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
The definition of "managerial capacity" allows for management of personnel or essential functions. 
The Petitioner asserted the Beneficiary's service abroad as both a "personnel manager" and a "function 
manager." We will therefore consider his foreign employment under both categories. 
A. Personnel Manager 
A personnel manager must have primarily supervised and controlled the work of other supervisory, 
managerial, or professional workers. Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). "A 
first-line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the 
2 
supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
When determining the managerial nature of a beneficiary's foreign employment, USCIS examines the 
job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) (requiring a petitioner to "clearly describe the duties"). USCIS 
also considers: the nature and structure of the foreign business; the existence of other workers who 
relieved a beneficiary from performing operational duties; the job duties of subordinates; and other 
factors that potentially affected a beneficiary's business role. 
Here, the record indicates the Beneficiary's transfer to the United States in L-lB nonimmigrant visa 
status in 2014. 1 The Petitioner states that, before the transfer, the Beneficiary worked for its affiliate 
in Mexico as an "IT Responsible" for more than six years. In a letter in response to the Director's 
RFE, the Petitioner's affiliate stated that the Beneficiary spent the following percentages of his time 
on the following duties: 
• 20%. Managed, directed, and oversaw direct report and contractors, including the ability to 
hire and fire, make recommendations, assign tasks, and conduct performance reviews. 
Interviewed and selected candidates. Terminated staff. Conducted performance and annual 
appraisal reviews. Identified training needs and defined training plans. Assigned tasks and 
followed up on progress and completion. Conducted disciplinary proceedings. 
• 10%. Managed, directed, and oversaw support and improvement of IT network systems, 
technologies, and processes. Ensured systems and networks operated as expected. Directed 
staff to correct performance issues. Determined systems' obsolescence and upgraded needs. 
Set the schedule for new parts. Troubleshot major issues and led resolutions of problems. 
• 10%. Prepared and managed the IT budget "with 100% authority and discretion." Participated 
in monthly budget follow-up meetings with the financial controller. 
• 15%. Served as subject matter expert in Mexican plant rollouts of IT systems. Managed 
projects, setting timelines and deadlines, and determining resources. Planned the deployment 
of systems for three plants. Directed the technical deployment team to perform required tasks. 
Defined the hardware, software, and licensing needs, and managed purchasing. Determined 
and implemented systems to meet local conditions and needs. Directed subordinates to 
implement necessary protocols. Coordinated vendors and contractors. 
• 10%. Implemented corporate and division IT standards and recommendations. Directed others 
to implement them. Set and determined standards. Set implementation guidelines. 
Determined required resources. Directed subordinates to perform required implementation 
tasks. 
• 5%. Managed, directed, and oversaw hardware inventory and proposed renewals to site 
management. Ensured required resources on site. Directed staff to order required materials. 
Updated budgets to include materials. Determined and set plans for replacement and upgrade 
needs. 
1 L-1 B visa status allows a beneficiary to temporarily work in the United States in a capacity involving "specialized 
knowledge." Section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). The term "specialized knowledge" means "special 
knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization's product, service, research, equipment, techniques. 
management, or other interests and its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise 
in the organization's processes and procedures." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(E). 
3 
• 20%. Determined and set, "with 100% discretion and authority," IT preventative plan. 
Directed others to implement the plan. Defined and set preventative plan activities. Assigned 
activities to subordinates. Ensured correct execution and completion. Directed subordinates 
to make necessary changes. 
• 10%. Determined and set all IT goals, policies, and procedures. Directed others to implement 
them. Defined individual objectives for local IT teams. Performed follow-up meetings to 
assess progress and ensure completion. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart from its Mexican affiliate indicating the Beneficiary's 
direct supervision abroad of three IT systems engineers. The Petitioner also submitted resumes of the 
Beneficiary's subordinates indicating that at least two of them have university degrees and copies of 
email messages supporting the Beneficiary's claimed management of the workers. 
The Director found that the Beneficiary's foreign position "involved managing various individual 
projects and performing many of the daily tasks associated with the projects throughout the duration 
of said project. In addition, it appears that the Beneficiary's foreign employment involved simply 
'supervisory' oversight of single individual projects abroad." 
The job-duty descriptions indicate the Beneficiary's management of projects involving the 
implementation of IT systems at manufacturing plants in Mexico. The Director, however, did not 
explain why managing or supervising such projects disqualified the Beneficiary as a personnel 
manager. Also, contrary to the Director's findings, the job-duty descriptions indicate the Beneficiary's 
primary performance of daily operational tasks. The descriptions indicate that he managed and 
oversaw workers, and directed them to perform tasks, order materials, make changes, and implement 
various protocols, standards, recommendations, goals, policies, and procedures. Thus, the descriptions 
indicate that the Beneficiary spent most of his time supervising and controlling the work of others. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not support the Director's finding regarding the nature of 
the Beneficiary's foreign employment. Nevertheless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 
employment abroad as a personnel manager. Inconsistencies of record cast doubt on the company's 
evidence. 
The Petitioner's initial letter states that the Beneficiary oversaw one IT systems engineer. In its RFE 
response, however, the Petitioner submitted a letter and organizational chart from its Mexican affiliate 
indicating the Beneficiary's supervision of three IT systems engineers. Also, the letter's signatory 
stated that the Beneficiary's supervisor in Mexico, an "ITS Manager," "reported directly to [the 
signatory]." The organizational chart, however, shows the ITS manager reporting directly to another 
company official. In addition, a copy of the Beneficiary's 2017 application for L-lB visa status states 
his responsibility for IT operations and systems at three manufacturing plants in Mexico. The title of 
the chart, however, indicates its description of the organizational hierarchy at only one of the plants. 
These unexplained discrepancies cast doubt on the scope of the Beneficiary's claimed role abroad. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies 
ofrecord with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
Moreover, if the Beneficiary supervised only one worker as the Petitioner's initial letter states, the 
record does not explain how he "primarily" acted as a personnel manager abroad. The Petitioner has 
4 
not demonstrated the existence of sufficient support staff who relieved the Beneficiary from primarily 
performing operational tasks. Even if the Beneficiary supervised three workers as the most recent 
evidence indicates, the record does not establish that this staffing level freed him to focus on high­
level, management duties at three manufacturing plants. See Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 
I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988) (stating that "[a]n employee who primarily performs the tasks 
necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a managerial 
or executive capacity"). 
The Director did not notify the Petitioner of these evidentiary deficiencies. We will therefore remand 
the matter. On remand, the Director should ask the Petitioner to explain the inconsistencies and to 
provide additional, independent, objective evidence of the Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad 
as a personnel manager. We will next consider the Beneficiary's foreign role as a function manager. 
B. Function Manager 
To establish a beneficiary's employment in a managerial capacity as a function manager, a petitioner 
must demonstrate that: (1) the function was a clearly defined activity; (2) the function was "essential," 
i.e., core to the organization; (3) a beneficiary primarily managed, as opposed to performed, the 
function; (4) a beneficiary acted at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect 
to the function managed; and (5) a beneficiary exercised discretion over the function's day-to-day 
operations. Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05, 4 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
The Petitioner's Mexican affiliate stated that the Beneficiary managed the affiliate's information 
systems, including policies, procedures, software deployments, budgeting, resources, and staffing. 
The affiliate's former finance director stressed that "[a]ccurate and efficient information systems affect 
[the organization] on a company-wide level. As such, management over the [information systems] 
function comprises an essential function within our company." 
The Petitioner has demonstrated that management of information systems was an essential function at 
the company's Mexican affiliate. But the record does not establish that the Beneficiary primarily 
managed, as opposed to performed, the function. As previously discussed, the Beneficiary's L-1 B 
application indicates his responsibility for the IT operations and systems of three manufacturing plants 
in Mexico. The record, however, demonstrates his prior supervision abroad of: at most, three 
subordinates. The Petitioner has not demonstrated the Mexican affiliate's possession of sufficient staff 
who relieved the Beneficiary from primarily performing operational duties. 
The Director did not inform the Petitioner of this evidentiary deficiency. Thus, on remand, the 
Director should ask the Petitioner to submit additional evidence of the Beneficiary's claimed 
management of an essential function abroad. 
If supported by the record, the Director may notify the Petitioner of additional, potential grounds of 
denial. The Director should afford the company a reasonable opportunity to respond to all issues on 
remand. Upon receipt of a timely response, the Director should review the entire record and issue a 
new decision. 
5 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The record does not support the petition's denial as stated by the Director. But the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated the Beneficiary's employment abroad in the claimed managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
6