remanded EB-1C Case: It Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 26, 2024 In Re: 34815972 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner is an IT consulting and software services company. It seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as a group project 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)(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 Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we conclude that the Director did not offer a complete and accurate analysis of the submitted evidence. 
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 does not claim that the Beneficiary's employment abroad or in the United States was or would be 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). 
IT. BASIS FOR REMAND 
As previously indicated, the Director's decision did not offer a complete analysis, nor did it 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). 
First, in discussing the Beneficiary's proposed position under the section heading "Qualifying 
Managerial Capacity - United States," the Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide 
"sufficient documentation about all the personnel whom the [B]eneficiary will manage." The Director 
also noted what was perceived as an inconsistency concerning the number of subordinates the 
Beneficiary would be expected to manage. The Director found that the Petitioner did not consistently 
claim the same number of projected subordinates in the proposed U.S. position. We disagree. As 
pointed out on appeal, documentation provided both initially and in response to a request for evidence 
(RFE), including an organizational chart that depicts the U.S. staffing hierarchy with respect to the 
Beneficiary's proposed position, shows that the Petitioner has consistently claimed the Beneficiary 
would oversee 18 subordinates. The Petitioner further states, and the record confirms, that job 
descriptions for all subordinate positions were provided in response to the RFE. These errors indicate 
that the Director did not properly and fully review the evidence. 
The Director also provided a confusing observation stating in part the following: "Despite the 
beneficiary having a managerial job title, without detailed documentation regarding the subordinate 
positions." This statement is incomplete and lacks any analysis of the evidence. As stated above, it 
also does not accurately reflect the evidence that was actually submitted. 
Ultimately, the Director concluded that the evidence does not show "that the petitioning entity 
employed the [B]eneficiary in a qualifying capacity as a manager." We note the Director's use of the 
past tense - "employed." It is unclear whether the Director used this verb tense to indicate erroneously 
the expectation that the Petitioner must show that it would not only employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial capacity under an approved petition, but also that the position the Beneficiary has held in 
the United States prior to filing this petition must also fit the statutory definition. However, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5), which outlines the details of the job offer requirement, specifically 
mentions employment with the "prospective employer" and states that a petitioner must provide a 
statement "which indicates that the [beneficiary] is to be employed in the United States in a managerial 
or executive capacity." (Emphasis added). Accordingly, there is no evidentiary burden on the 
Petitioner within the context of this petition 2 to establish that it has employed the Beneficiary in a 
managerial capacity, only that it will do so at the time of adjustment or consular processing should 
this petition get approved. The Director intended to indicate that the Petitioner's evidentiary burden 
2 users records indicate that the Petitioner has filed several Forms I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on the 
Beneficiary's behalf. While there may be some degree of overlap regarding the eligibility criteria for the current and 
previously filed employment-based petitions, we note that each petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate 
record and a separate burden of proof. In making a determination of statutory eligibility, users is limited to the 
inf01mation contained in that individual record of proceeding. 8 e.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(ii). 
2 
in this matter includes a showing that its employment of the Beneficiary in the United States in the 
period leading up to this petition's filing was in a managerial capacity, imposing this additional 
evidentiary burden would be incorrect. 
Further, in discussing the Beneficiary's employment abroad, the Director made the incorrect 
determination that the Petitioner did not submit job duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's 
subordinates. In fact, the Petitioner provided a listing of the Beneficiary's subordinates' position titles 
and job descriptions in response to the RFE, much like it did with respect to the Beneficiary's proposed 
U.S. position. It appears, however, that the Director did not accurately and properly review the record 
prior to reaching an adverse conclusion concerning the Beneficiary's foreign entity employment in a 
managerial capacity. The Director also determined that the Petitioner "failed to demonstrate that the 
[B]eneficiary supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function." Given that the Beneficiary is not currently employed 
abroad, but rather has been working in the United States since 2015, the Director's use of the present 
tense - "supervises and controls" and "manages" - under the subject heading "Qualifying Managerial 
Capacity - Overseas" is confusing and leads us to question whether the Director's determination in 
fact pertains to the Beneficiary's prior employment abroad. 
Accordingly, given the errors outlined above, it does not appear that the Director fully considered the 
entirety of the record prior to making adverse conclusions about the Beneficiary's foreign and 
proposed positions in a managerial capacity. 
Notwithstanding the deficient analysis, the record is currently insufficient to establish that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
capacity, as claimed. 
Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component 
of the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions 
(such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly 
supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or 
with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function 
for which the employee has authority. 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. 
3 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has and would continue to assume the role of a personnel 
manager who managed and would manage a component of the organization. The Petitioner states that 
the Beneficiary's foreign position as project manager ofl Ia client of the foreign organization, 
and his proposed position as group project manager of ______ the Petitioner's client in 
the United States, satisfy the first prong of the statutory definition for managerial capacity based on 
the Beneficiary's respective project manager roles with respect to specific clients of the organization. 
We disagree. 
In a supporting cover letter, the Petitioner stated that its organization "has ongoing contracts with more 
than 1872 major companies for software development" and it provided organizational charts depicting 
the Beneficiary's respective positions within each entity. One of two foreign organizational charts 
depicts the Beneficiary as "Project Manager,! I overseeing a nine-person staff comprised 
of five technology analysts, three technology leads, and one senior systems engineer. Despite 
indicating that the Beneficiary's position was supervisory with respect to these IT personnel, the chart 
pertained exclusively to an unidentified cross section of the foreign organization and included no 
information clarifying the placement of this cross section within the broader scope of the organization. 
As such, we are unable to assess the Beneficiary's organizational placement or that of I I the 
client he managed, within the overall scope of the organization. 
The Petitioner provided a separate organizational chart depicting the foreign entity's reporting 
structure with respect to the Beneficiary. This chart shows the Beneficiary at the bottom of a hierarchy 
in which he was subordinate to seven managerial tiers, starting with "Senior Project Manager, 
I I as the Beneficiary's direct superior, followed by these six successive layers of 
management: "Delivery Manager, I I "AVP Delivery Partner, "VP 
Delivery Head, I l "EVP-Service Offer Head, I I "EVP-Co-Head of 
Delivery,! and "DIR, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director." 
The Petitioner provided two comparable organizational charts elaborating on the Beneficiary's 
proposed position in the United States. One chart depicts the Beneficiary's proposed position with 
respect to an 18-person IT staff, while another chart depicts the Beneficiary at the bottom of a hierarchy 
in which he is once again shown as occupying a position that is subordinate to seven managerial tiers, 
starting with "Program Manager, I tas his direct superior, followed by these six successive 
layers of management: "Delivery ManagerJ "AVP Delivery Partner,! I 
"VP Delivery Head,I "EVP-Service Offer Head,I I; "EVP-Co-Head of 
Delivery, I; and "DIR, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director." 
The Petitioner did not provide definitions for the acronyms ____________ that 
are referenced in charts pertaining to both entities. As such, we cannot gauge the significance of these 
acronyms with respect to either organization. Regardless, to establish that the Beneficiary has been 
and would be employed in a managerial capacity, the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary's 
respective positions meet all elements of the statutory definition in the course of performing primarily 
managerial duties. Here, the record indicates that the Beneficiary has and would exercise discretion 
over the day-to-day operations of projects with respect _____________ which 
are the clients assigned to him in his positions abroad and in the United States. However, the Petitioner 
has not established that these clients represent a component of the organization and that managing 
projects related to these clients demonstrates that the Beneficiary managed and would manage a 
4 
department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization, as required by section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(i) of the Act. 
For the reasons discussed above, the record as presently constituted does not show that the 
Beneficiary's positions abroad and in the United States satisfy all components of the term "managerial 
capacity" as defined in the statute governing this classification. 
Regardless, because the Director's decision did not adequately analyze the facts of the matter and 
clearly apply the regulatory standards, we will remand the matter 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. 
5