sustained EB-1C Case: Automotive Electronics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-E-(N-A-), INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 13, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of electronic components for the communications, automotive and 
other industries, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a "Program Manager/Project 
Lead/Lead Software Engineer" 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. 
§ l 153(b )(1 )(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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United 
States in a managerial capacity. The Director's determination was based on a finding that the 
Petitioner's response to a request for evidence (RFE) did not include the requested information 
regarding the Beneficiary's job duties in the U.S. and his former duties with the Petitioner's foreign 
affiliate; the decision did not include an analysis of the submitted duties or references to other evidence 
in the record. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional supporting documentation and contends that the Director 
did not consider previously submitted evidence showing that both the Beneficiary's U.S. position and 
previous position abroad involve the supervision of subordinate professionals. The Petitioner points 
to job descriptions of the Beneficiary's subordinates and organizational charts illustrating the 
companies' reporting structures to support the claim that the Beneficiary was and will be employed at 
a senior level with respect to critical engineering divisions that develop Bluetooth-enabled 
technologies for the petitioning group's automotive industry clients. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes that, contrary to the Director's finding, it did in fact submit more 
detailed position descriptions for the Beneficiary's current and prior positions in response to the 
Director's RFE, and the descriptions were not identical to the initial descriptions. Finally, the 
Petitioner contends that the Director's decision, which was limited to a few sentences of analysis, did 
not provide it with sufficient notice of the deficiencies that led to the denial of the petition. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner has correctly pointed to errors in the Director's 
analysis, which does not adequately consider the Petitioner's claims and supporting evidence. We 
Matter of A-E-(N-A-), Inc. 
also find that the Petitioner has supplemented the record with sufficient supporting documentation to 
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and would 
be employed in the United States, in a managerial capacity as defined at section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(A). The record demonstrates that his current and former roles with the 
Petitioner's group have involved management of a defined engineering function or subdivision, 
supervision of subordinate professional personnel, the ability to recommend hiring decisions and other 
personnel actions, authority over the day-to-day operations of the engineering activities for which he 
has authority, and sufficient subordinate staff to relieve him from having to spend a significant portion 
of his time on engineering and other non-managerial tasks. 
In sum, we find that the Petitioner has overcome both grounds for denial. Therefore, we will sustain 
the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of A-E-(N-A-), Inc., ID# 3626921 (AAO June 13, 2019) 
2