remanded EB-1C Case: Technology Solutions

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OFT- , LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG . 30, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , a company engaged in the global outsourcing of back office technology solutions , 
seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its "Vice President - Global Operations" 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. § l 153(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition concluding that the record did not 
establish , as required , that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision contained numerous factual errors , placed 
undue emphasis on the size of the petitioning U.S . entity , and failed to consider both the Beneficiary ' s 
detailed job description and evidence establishing that he oversees a team of subordinate professionals 
based in India. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity as 
defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. However , as the Petitioner has not established that it has 
met all eligibility requirements , we will remand the matter for the entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 Fonn 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 
Matter ofT-, LLC 
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 
The sole issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. Although the Director 
observed that the Petitioner did not clearly or consistently state whether it sought to classify the 
Beneficiary as a manager or as an executive, we note that the Petitioner expressly claimed that the 
offered position is in a managerial capacity, and not in an executive capacity. 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary would be responsible for managing the delivery of a financial 
services platform and associated services under the terms of a "Development Services Agreement" 
with the petitioning group's major client in the United States and would exercise substantial 
discretionary decision-making over the day-to-day activities of this essential function. While the 
Director focused on the size of the petitioning company, we note that the Petitioner submitted detailed, 
credible documentation establishing that a team of approximately 20 engineers in India (including 
three subordinate managers or supervisors) are delegated to perform the hands-on technical tasks 
needed to deliver, enhance, and maintain the platform that the client has outsourced to the Petitioner's 
group. The record reflects that the Beneficiary performs some higher-level technical duties and 
administrative functions; however, the Petitioner has met its burden to establish that his duties will be 
primarily managerial in nature, and that he functions at the most senior level with respect to this 
function. 
In sum, we conclude the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. Accordingly, the 
Director's decision is withdrawn. 
III. BASIS FOR REMAND 
A. Ability to Pay 
Although the Director's decision will be withdrawn, the record does not contain regulatory required 
evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage from the priority date 
continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(g)(2) requires that "[ e ]vidence of this ability shall be either in the form of copies of annual 
reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements." In this case, the priority date is the date 
the immigrant petition was filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
The priority date in this case is the date of filing, December 26, 201 7, and the proffered wage is 
$105,000 annually. The record reflects that the Petitioner paid the Beneficiary $104,817.95 in 2017. 
2 
Matter ofT-, LLC 
The Petitioner has provided a copy of its federal tax return for 2016, but the record does not include any 
of the regulatory required evidence - either annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial 
statements - for the year 201 7 or thereafter. We will remand the matter so that the Director may request 
this evidence and make a determination regarding the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. 
B. Doing Business 
Another issue that warrants additional review is whether the Petitioner is and will be doing business 
as defined in the regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). 
Doing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services by 
a firm, corporation, or other entity and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2). 
The record, which includes only a 2016 federal tax return, does not contain recent evidence 
demonstrating that Petitioner's ongoing business activities. As noted, the Petitioner submitted a 
"Development Services Agreement" between a U.S.-based client and the Petitioner's foreign affiliate, 
which was signed on January 1, 201 7. While the record demonstrates that the Beneficiary has been 
assigned to the Petitioner to perform the U.S.-based managerial role required under the terms of this 
agreement, it is unclear whether the Petitioner itself is otherwise engaged in the provision of any goods 
and services. On remand, the Petitioner should be given an opportunity to submit additional evidence, 
from 201 7 and onward, in support of this regulatory requirement, including evidence of ongoing 
payments made pursuant to the submitted Development Services Agreement. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we will remand this case to the Director for further consideration. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter ofT-, LLC, ID# 5649504 (AAO Aug. 30, 2019) 
3