sustained EB-1C Case: Creative Direction

MATTER OF S-,__I ----' 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 12, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an I !creator, manufacturer, and distributor, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as "VP Creative Director" 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 on multiple grounds, concluding that 
the record did not establish, as required, that (1) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity, (2) the Beneficiary had been employed in a managerial 
or executive capacity in his former capacity abroad, and (3) the Petitioner was doing business as 
defined by the regulations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager in the United 
States and that he acted as a function manager in his former capacity. The Petitioner contends that it 
provided detailed descriptions of the Beneficiary duties in the United States and abroad, including the 
percentages of time he devoted to his tasks. The Petitioner states that the Director analyzed 
corroborating evidence out of context and asserts that the supporting documentation substantiates that 
the Beneficiary will act as a function manager in the United States and that he previously acted as one 
abroad. Further, the Petitioner points to an annual report of its foreign parent and to tax documentation 
and contends that this establishes that it is doing business as required by the regulations. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the record is sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary more 
likely than not will act in a managerial capacity in the United States. First, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has submitted a detailed description of the Beneficiary's U.S. duties indicating that he will 
be primarily engaged in qualifying managerial tasks overseeing an essential function of the company; 
namely the company's design studio in I I In addition, the Petitioner provided 
documentation reflecting that the Beneficiary more likely than not will delegate most non-qualifying 
operational tasks to subordinate professionals, including a subordinate senior design manager and two 
other designers he will oversee. The Petitioner also submitted supporting documentation reflecting 
that the Beneficiary will have the authority to hire, fire, and take other personnel actions with respect 
Matter of s-1~-~ 
to his professional subordinates. For instance, the Petitioner provided supporting documentation 
indicating that the Beneficiary will conduct performance reviews of his subordinates, he will delegate 
work to them consistent with strategic initiatives, and he will hold budgetary authority for his function, 
and that he will make hiring and personnel decisions with respect to his function. As such, the 
evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary will primarily perform the duties of a function manager in 
the United States. 
In addition, the Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary acted as a function manager in his 
former capacity abroad as a creative director overseeing several of the company's essential I I 
brands. In fact, the Beneficiary's role abroad appears to be very similar to his role in the United States 
and the Petitioner has submitted a detailed and credible duty description for his former position. The 
Petitioner also submitted documentation indicating that the Beneficiary oversaw several managers and 
professionals within his function and that he exercised full discretionary authority over it. In sum, the 
submitted evidence credibly demonstrates that the Beneficiary more likely than not devoted a majority 
of his time to qualifying managerial tasks abroad. Therefore, the Petitioner sufficiently established 
that the Beneficiary acted as a function manager in his former capacity abroad. 
Lastly, we conclude that the Petitioner has demonstrated that it is doing business consistent with the 
regulations. The Petitioner provides supporting documentation reflecting that it operates within the 
large corporate umbrella of its foreign parent; but more importantly, that it regularly provides essential 
services within this corporate structure. For instance, the Petitioner submitted substantial 
documentation that it acts as a hub for the company's I I design efforts in the United States. As 
such, we conclude that the Petitioner has established that it is regularly providing services; and 
therefore, that it is doing business consistent with the regulations. A petitioner may establish that it is 
"doing business" by demonstrating that it is providing goods and/or services in a regular, systematic, 
and continuous manner to related companies within its multinational organization. Matter of 
Leacheng, 26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015). 
The totality of the evidence establishes that: (1) the Beneficiary will more likely than not be employed 
in a managerial capacity in the United States, (2) the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial 
capacity in his former capacity abroad, and (3) the Petitioner is doing business as defined by the 
regulations. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has met that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of S-~I -~~ ID# 2754542 (AAO July 12, 2019) 
2