sustained EB-1C Case: Advertising And Communications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12019735 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 25, 2021 
Form I-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a multinational advertising and communications firm, seeks to pennanently employ 
the Beneficiary as a "Solutions Architect," with a proffered wage of $144,000, 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, as required, thatthe Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner identifies the Beneficiary's respective components abroad and in the United 
States. The Petitioner also explains that the perceived inconsistencies merely reflected organizational 
changes that took place between the time the petition was initially filed and nearly one year later when 
the response to the notice of intent to deny was submitted. Further, the Petitioner argues that the 
Beneficiary has discretionary authority that he would continue to exercise in managing the component 
and the professional subordinate personnel who carried out the duties of that component abroad and 
who would carry out the duties of a similar component in the United States. 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence clarifying the 
Beneficiary's respective duties and roles abroad and in the United States, both of which involve 
primarily managing a component of the organization. The Petitioner provided sufficient evidence 
demonstrating that the Beneficiary has and would continue to perform personnel management duties 
in the course of managing an integral component of the organization and exercising discretionary 
authority over that component and the employees who carry out its underlying operational tasks. 
In sum, the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence and established by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the Beneficiary was and would more likely than not be employed in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.