sustained EB-1C Case: Automotive Manufacturing

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I-A-C-0-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : .JUNE 28, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, 1 a manufacturer and supplier of automotive interior components, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as a program 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 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: (1) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a 
managerial capacity ; and (2) the Petitioner's foreign subsidiary employed the Beneficiary in a 
managerial capacity. 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts 
that the Director applied an 
inappropriate standard of review and erred by not giving deference to the prior approval of a 
nonimmigrant petition filed on the Beneficiary 's behalf. 
Upon de novo review , we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 
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 )(1 )(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 
1 
We note that the Petitioner 's full name is 
.
Matter of 1-A-C-G-
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. 
§ 204.50)(3). 
II. DISCUSSION 
The Director found that the evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and 
would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity as defined at section 1 0 l (a)( 44 )(A) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A). The Director found that the Petitioner did not provide 
sufficient information regarding the Beneficiary's duties, the scope of his responsibility, or the 
nature of the projects or programs he has been and would be managing. 
Upon review of the petition and evidence, including the evidence submitted on appeal, we find that 
the Petitioner has overcome the grounds for denial articulated by the Director. 
The Petitioner's group is a global supplier of automotive components and systems whose customers 
include the world's leading automobile manufacturers. The group has combined sales of $5.2 
billion, with 80 manufacturing facilities and 28,000 employees worldwide. The Petitioner seeks to 
employ the Beneficiary as a program manager responsible for overseeing the manufacture and 
delivery of interior soft trim components for the Petitioner's client, 
In a detailed statement submitted on appeal, the Petitioner explains how this role requires the 
Beneficiary to manage an essential function , 2 noting that the project has a budget of $100 million. 
While the Beneficiary would not directly supervise any employees, the record establishes that he 
will be employed as a function manager responsible for allocating resources, delegating 
responsibilities to managers and senior engineers , and overseeing the delivery of finished products to 
customers, with discretion to make business decisions related to the program under the supervision 
of a director, who in tum reports to a vice president. 
The record establishes that the Beneficiary performed similar duties in his role as a launch manager 
with the Petitioner's Mexican subsidiary, where he was responsible for managing all of the 
company's products manufactured for 2019 model year full size pick-up truck, a 
$50 million program . 
2 The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers'' and "function managers .'' See 
section IOI(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) ofthe Act. The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not 
supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential 
function" within the organization. See section I 0 I (a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. When reviewing the totality of the evidence 
in a case involving a function manager with no direct subordinates, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may 
consider factors such as 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, 20 16). 
2 
Matter of 1-A-C-G-
In sum, the Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary was and would be managing an essential 
function of the organization. The record demonstrates that the roles of launch manager and program 
manager are senior positions with respect to the company's manufacturing programs, and that these 
positions entail primarily managerial duties, with significant discretion over the day-to-day 
operations of the assigned function. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and will be employed in 
the United States, in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of 1-A-C-G-, ID# 409729 (AAO June 28, 2017) 
3