sustained EB-1C Case: Battery Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 5, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a developer of lithium battery solutions with over 70 employees, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its chief technology officer 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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
capacity. The Director did not address submitted evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties, his 
role within the organization, or the roles and duties of subordinate employees. Instead, the Director 
focused on the Petitioner's interchangeable references to the Beneficiary as either managerial or 
executive, finding that these references were indicative of the Petitioner making "material changes" 
that resulted in "too many discrepancies as to the classification of the [B]eneficiary." 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts the claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial 
capacity, explaining that despite the Beneficiary's executive position title, his role and job duties 
would be those of a function manager. 
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 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a 
beneficiary will manage an essential function, 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 
1 Although the Director cited to portions of the regulations that contain requirements pertaining to foreign employment, 
the denial decision does not include an analysis or adverse conclusion pertaining to the Beneficiary's employment abroad. 
As such, we find that the Beneficiary's foreign employment was not a basis for the denial and need to be addressed in this 
decision. 
Matter of E- Inc. 
beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown, pointing out that the 
Beneficiary needs to allocate his time "primarily," as opposed to entirely, to the performance of 
managerial job duties. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has and would continue to manage 
the research and developing function, asserting that the underlying job duties of that function would 
be carried out by other staff, including technicians, engineers, and administrative personnel. 
We find that the Director's analysis focused primarily on the Petitioner's references to the 
Beneficiary's position as either executive or managerial and did not adequately consider the supporting 
evidence, including the Beneficiary's job duties, the Petitioner's personnel structure, the Beneficiary's 
role within that structure, or the Petitioner's support staff: which includes individuals who would 
relieve the Beneficiary from having to primarily allocate his time to non-managerial job duties. We 
also find that the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence that establishes that the Beneficiary would 
more likely than not devote his time primarily to managerial job duties. In sum, we find that the 
Petitioner has overcome the basis for denial. Therefore, we will sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of E-Inc., ID# 4310359 (AAO July 5, 2019) 
2