sustained EB-1C Case: Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9685066 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 31, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Executive of Manager 
The Petitioner, a consulting company that works in partnership with cities, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its President/CEO 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. § 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 (1) the Beneficiary was employed abroad or would be employed in the United 
States, in a managerial or executive capacity, and (2) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the 
foreign entity. The Petitioner subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The 
Director granted the motion to reopen and determined that the Petitioner established its qualifying 
relationship with the foreign entity. However, the Director affirmed the denial based on a conclusion that 
the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's employment in a managerial or executive capacity.1 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director's decisions were not based on a review of the 
totality of the evidence and did not provide an adequate basis for the denial of the petition. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
Prior to denying the petition, the Director issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) in which he 
requested clarification regarding the Petitioner's address, noting that there were several addresses 
identified in the initial evidence. The Director also requested clarification regarding which foreign 
entity employed the Beneficiary prior to his transfer to the United States as an L-lA nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee. The Director did not indicate that he intended to deny the petition based on 
the Petitioner's failure to demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, or would be 
employed in the United States, in a managerial or executive capacity. 
1 In dismissing the motion, the Director also questioned whether the Beneficiary could be considered an "employee" based 
on his 50% ownership of both entities but did not discuss the Petitioner's evidence or reach a clear determination of 
ineligibility. The Petitioner has satisfactorily addressed the Director's concerns on appeal. 
In denying the petition, the Director quoted a portion of a statement from the Beneficiary that was 
submitted in response to the NOID. Specifically, the Director highlighted the Beneficiary's statement 
that he and his partner "have always been working to develop this company since its original 
establishment." The Director observed that "[t]he [beneficiary's] chosen words indicate that his duties 
and responsibilities for the U.S. entity were to develop the company. This statement has not been 
interpreted any other way[.]" The decision lacked any further discussion of the Petitioner's evidence. 
The Director concluded that "the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's managerial or 
executive position or the U.S. and abroad as the response indicates the beneficiary's primary 
responsibility was to develop the company." 
On motion, the Petitioner argued that the Director erred by basing his determination on the 
Beneficiary's statement that his role included developing the company, noting that the decision did 
not address any of the evidence submitted to establish the Beneficiary's managerial or executive 
capacity, and that the phrase "develop the company" was taken out of context. In affirming the denial 
on motion, the Director emphasized that "there is no other way to interpret the fact that the beneficiary 
himself clearly stated that he was here to develop the company." 
Based on the foregoing, we agree with the Petitioner's assertion that neither of the Director's decisions 
were based on a complete review of the evidence submitted to establish the Beneficiary's employment 
capacity with the Petitioner and the foreign entity. Further, we agree that the Beneficiary's statement 
that he has been responsible for the development of the petitioning organization does not prohibit a 
finding that his position is in a managerial or executive capacity. Therefore, the Director's reliance 
on this single phrase provided insufficient basis to support an adverse finding. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). The Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 
l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we conclude that it is more likely than 
not that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in an 
executive capacity. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude 
in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. 
In its initial submission, the Petitioner submitted a detailed letter explaining the nature of its business, 
the structure of its multinational organization, a lengthy breakdown of the Beneficiary's U.S. job 
duties, job titles and job duties for the Beneficiary's subordinates in the United States and abroad, 
information regarding outside vendors the Petitioner uses for IT-related services, a description of 
positions that the company is seeking to fill, and an overview of the duties the Beneficiary performed 
in his similar position for the qualifying foreign entity prior to his transfer to the United States as a 
nonimmigrant. The Petitioner also submitted an organizational chart and supporting evidence related 
to the Beneficiary's direct subordinates, including their recent pay statements, resumes, business 
2 
documents corroborating the nature of their job duties, and a flow chart explaining how the 
Beneficiary's subordinates relieve him from performing duties related to lead generation, lead 
conversion to sales, account and customer relationship management, data management and 
engineering. 
With this evidence, the Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that the Beneficiary, 
as the president/CEO of the multinational organization, occupies an elevated position within its 
organizational hierarchy, directs the management of the company, and is primarily focused on its 
policies, goals and objectives rather than on its day-to-day operations. The Petitioner has also provided 
examples of his authority to exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and 
demonstrated that he receives only general supervision from the organization's board of directors. The 
Petitioner's evidence demonstrates that he occupied the same role with the foreign entity prior to his 
transfer to the United States. Although the organization is not large, the Petitioner has amply 
documented how its managerial and professional staff in the United States and abroad relieve the 
Beneficiary from any significant involvement in performing non-executive tasks. 
In sum, the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence and established by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in an executive 
capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3