remanded EB-1C Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 31, 2025 In Re: 36294974 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a global manufacturer of coatings and specialty materials, seeks to permanently employ 
the Beneficiary as its senior business 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for the benefit sought based on deficiencies surrounding its claim that the 
Beneficiary had been and would be employed in a managerial capacity. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&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 will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
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 )(1 )(C) of the Act. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, 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). 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function or component of the organization; 
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; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function; and exercises discretion over the day-to-day 
operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 101(a)(44)(A) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(44)(A). 
Preliminarily, we note that the basis for the Director's denial is unclear. The Director lists the 
Beneficiary's duties abroad and concludes that the Beneficiary performed, rather than managed, the 
claimed function of directing all financial aspects of the foreign entity's business in Latin America. 
Further, the Director states that the Petitioner "has failed to establish that the [Beneficiary] supervises 
or controls the work of other supervisory, managerial, or professional employees in sufficient number 
to accomplish the enumerated duties." In conclusion, the Director simply determined that the 
Petitioner had not established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the basis of the Director's decision is unclear. Specifically, 
the Petitioner contends that the Director's discussion of the Beneficiary's job duties conflates the 
duties of his foreign position of packaging business controller for Latin America with those of his 
proposed position as senior business manager for the United States and Canada and does not 
specifically explain the basis for denial. We agree. 
An officer must fully explain the specific reasons for denying a visa pet1t10n. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(i). Absent a specific explanation for denial and adequate notice of why the submitted 
evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility, a petitioner does not have a fair opportunity to contest 
a denial through the motion or appellate process. See, e.g., Matter ofM-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). Here, the Director's 
analysis incorrectly conflates two separate eligibility requirements for this classification. The 
Director did not afford individual consideration to the duties and unique factors pertaining to each 
position, and the decision did not articulate whether the denial was based on the Petitioner's failure to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's foreign employment, U.S. employment, or both, was in a 
managerial capacity as defined by Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A). 
Because the Director presented confusing analysis and conflicting statements in the denial, we are 
remanding the case to the Director for further review and to provide an accurate and sufficient 
explanation of the grounds of denial so that the Petitioner more fully understands the Director's 
concerns. If the Director's determinations on remand are dispositive, the Director should clearly 
explain why the Petitioner does not qualify for the requested benefit by separately analyzing the 
submitted evidence as it relates to the Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad and proposed U.S. 
employment in a managerial capacity. 
In addition to the concerns above, the Petitioner also claims on appeal that the Director's decision does 
not reflect consideration of the relevant factors outlined in Matter of G-, Inc., Adopted Decision 
2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017), and instead was based almost exclusively on the fact that the 
2 
Beneficiary did not have sufficient subordinate employees to relieve him from performing 
nonqualifying duties. The Petitioner further asserts that the Director did not afford due consideration 
to the documentary evidence submitted in support of the petition. 
Here, the Petitioner consistently claimed that it employed the Beneficiary abroad, and will employ the 
Beneficiary in the United States, as a function manager. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will 
manage an essential function, as opposed to primarily managing subordinate personnel, it must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that "(l) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core 
to the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; 
(4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and (5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day 
operations." Matter ofG-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05. 
In evaluating whether a beneficiary will be employed a managerial capacity, USCIS reviews the 
totality of the evidence, including the required description of their job duties, the company's 
organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees (if any), the presence of 
other employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, 
and any other evidence contributing to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. In the case of a function manager, other factors considered may include a beneficiary's 
position within the organizational hierarchy, the depth of a petitioner's organizational structure, the 
scope of a beneficiary's authority and its impact on a petitioner's operations, the indirect supervision 
of employees within the scope of the function managed, and the value of the budgets, products, or 
services that a beneficiary manages. See Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 
14,2016). 
When staffing levels are considered in determining whether an individual will act as a function 
manager, USCIS must also consider relevant evidence in the record concerning the reasonable needs 
of the organization as a whole, including any related entities within the broader 
organization. See 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act; see also Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02. 
The Petitioner's assertions are persuasive. In addition to not affording an individual analysis to both 
the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. position and the position abroad, the record reflects that the Director 
did not sufficiently address the Petitioner's evidence and explain the reasons for denial of the petition 
based on the relevant adjudicative factors set forth in the statute and our adopted decisions addressing 
adjudication of petitions involving function managers under section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Specifically, while the Director listed the Beneficiary job duties for the foreign position in the denial, 
the decision does not include an analysis of the Beneficiary's submitted job descriptions, the 
Petitioner's descriptions of its business and the functions the Beneficiary managed, the group's 
organizational charts, job descriptions for the Beneficiary's U.S. subordinate employees, and internal 
email communications and work product intended to illustrate how the Beneficiary meets the 
definition of a function manager both in the United States and abroad. See generally 2 USCJS Policy 
Manual L.8(C), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (identifying the types of evidence USCIS 
should consider when evaluating the nature of a claimed managerial or executive position). Although 
the record may not ultimately support a conclusion that the Beneficiary is eligible for classification as 
3 
a multinational manager, such a determination cannot be based entirely on the Petitioner's staffing 
levels. Again, an officer must fully explain the specific reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further consideration 
and entry of a new decision. On remand, the Director is instructed to re-evaluate the evidence relating 
to the Beneficiary's foreign and U.S. employment, as well as the Petitioner's claims on appeal. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4