remanded EB-1C Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF U-I- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 6, 2018 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a freight forwarding and logistics services company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its president and general 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 a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed by a qualifying entity abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding her entry to the 
United States. The Director emphasized that he had requested evidence related to the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad in a request for evidence (RFE), and that such evidence was not included in the 
Petitioner's response. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a description of the Beneficiary's last positiOn abroad, an 
organizational chart depicting her position within the foreign entity's management hierarchy, and a 
letter addressing the job duties performed by the Beneficiary's direct subordinates. The Petitioner 
objects to the denial and maintains that the Beneficiary's prior approvals for L-1 A nonimmigrant 
status should have been sufficient to establish that the foreign entity employed her in a managerial or 
executive capacity abroad. 
Upon de novo review of the record, including the evidence submitted on appeal, we find that the 
Petitioner has now submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary was more likely 
than not employed in a managerial capacity abroad. However, the evidence of record is insufficient 
to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity at the time this petition was filed. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision 
and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with our discussion below. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa 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 
Matter (~f U-1- Inc. 
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. 
A United States employer may file Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a 
beneficiary under section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. The petition 
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 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 
Although we will withdraw the Director's determination regarding the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad, the record as presently constituted is insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity as of the date of filing in March 
2014. 1 The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit 
have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as the president and general manager of its freight 
forwarding company, which claimed to have five employees as of March 2014. On the Form 1-140, 
the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be "[r]esponsible for sales, marketing[,] coordinating 
with vendors and customers, neogotionating [sic] service contracts and hiring and firing employees." 
In a supporting letter, the Petitioner provided a broad description of the Beneficiary's duties, noting 
her "wide latitude of authority over the company," her responsibility for setting policies and 
developing strategies, and for personnel, planning, and business development. However, the 
Petitioner also mentioned her business development efforts, noting that she attends exhibitions, 
developed a web page, develops relationships with new customers, and negotiates service contracts. 
In short, the initial descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties suggested that, when the petition was 
filed, she likely performed a combination of managerial, executive, and operational tasks, such as 
1 
We acknowledge that the Director found the Petitioner's response to the RFE satisfactory to establish this eligibility 
requirement. However, we are not bound by a decision of a service center or district director. See La. Philharmonic 
Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E. D. La. 2000). 
Further, we acknowledge that USCIS has approved L-1 A nonimmigrant petitions that had been previously filed on 
behalf of the Beneficiary. We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. ·See Matter of Church Scientology lnt '1, 
19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988); see also Sussex Eng 'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, I 090 (6th Cir. 1987). 
Each nonimmigrant petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of proof. In 
making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in that individual record of 
proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(ii). 
2 
.
Matter of U-1- inc . 
sales, marketing, and service-oriented duties that required routine interactions with customers , 
potential customers, and vendors. The Petitioner's description ofthe Beneficiary ' s job duties did not 
establish what proportion of the duties is managerial in nature, and what proportion 1s non­
managerial. See Republic ofTranskei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991 ). 
The organizational chart submitted at the time of filing showed that the Beneficiary directly 
supervised a marketing specialist, an operations manager , and a bookkeeper who also served in a 
dual "operations" role. Further, the chart showed that the operations manager supervised a customer 
service employee. This chart, including the brief subordinate job descriptions that accompanied it, 
was insufficient to establish how the four-person staff would relieve the Beneficiary from significant 
involvement in provision of the company's freight forwarding and logistics services and other 
operational and administrative duties associated with the day-to-day operations of the company. 
Further, the Petitioner did not sufficiently document its full-time employment of these four 
subordinates at the time of filing. The company's 2013 IRS Form W-2s showed that the marketing 
specialist earned only $2100 in 2013, and the bookkeeper/operations employee also received wages 
commensurate with part-time employment. 
Although the Director addressed the Beneficiary's proposed employment in the RFE issued in 
January 2017, he requested evidence of wages paid to employees in 2015 and 2016. The Petitioner 
provided the requested evidence , including an updated organizational chart, recent quarterly federal 
tax returns, 2015 Form W-2s, and an updated job description for the Beneficiary. However, this 
evidence cannot establish eligibility as of the date of filing. At the time the Petitioner submitted its 
response, the organizational chart indicated that it had staff based at 1 and in Delaware , while 
the initial evidence indicated no locations beyond an office in New York. 
In addition , the job description provided in response to the RFE was very broad and included 
responsibilities such as "engage in the daily management of the business," "miscellaneous executive 
duties," and "make decisions on the strategies and policies of business development." Further, it 
included a number of tasks that the Beneficiary would not reasonably perform on a day-to-day basis, 
such as "establish job duties and salary level of employees, " "develop financial policies," and 
"establish annual financial budget." This description provided little insight into what the Beneficiary 
would actually be doing as a part of her regular routine, and also omitted the sales, marketing and 
negotiation functions that were included in the initial job description, without explaining who 
actually performs those functions. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established the nature of the Beneficiary's day-to­
day duties and the Petitioner's staffing and structure at the time of filing, and the evidence is 
therefore insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary would perform primarily managerial or 
executive duties as of March 2014. Accordingly, we are remanding this matter so that the Director 
can review the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment. The Director should request any 
additional evidence deemed warranted and allow the Petitioner to submit such evidence within a 
reasonable period of time. 
3 
Matter of U-1- Inc. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter ofU-1- Inc., ID# 996878 (AAO Mar. 6, 2018) 
4