sustained EB-1C Case: E-Business Services

(b)(6)
DATE: APR 3 0 2015 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
Thank you, 
f�on Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office {AAO) on appeal. The decision of the director will be 
withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner is a multinational corporation operating as a provider of multilingual e-business services. The 
petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the United States as its global project manager. Accordingly, the 
petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203{b){1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b){1)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. In a decision dated January 30, 2014, the director denied the petition based on the 
finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the petitioner disputes the denial and addresses the director's adverse findings in a supplemental 
brief, which contains a detailed explanation of the beneficiary's managerial role in his former position with 
the foreign employer. The petitioner also provides a comprehensive understanding of how the foreign entity's 
organizational hierarchy is structured. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available .. . to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs {A) through (C): 
* * * 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of the alien's application for 
classification and admission into the United States under this subparagraph, has been 
employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or 
subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render 
services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is 
managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and managers who 
have previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that entity, 
and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 10l{a)(44)(A){i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U. S.C. § 1101(a)(44){A)(i) and (ii). Personnel 
managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly 
states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of 
the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Section 
101(a){44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C. F.R. § 204.50)(4). If a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the 
beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and 
take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(2). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
On the other hand, the term "function manager" generally applies to a beneficiary whose primary tasks do not 
revolve around supervising or controlling the work of a subordinate staff. Rather, the term "function 
manager" applies to a beneficiary whose primary responsibility is managing an "essential function" within the 
organization. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A)(ii). The term "essential 
function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that the beneficiary is managing an 
essential function, the petitioner must furnish a written job offer that clearly describes the duties to be 
performed in managing the essential function, i.e. identify the function with specificity, articulate the essential 
nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the 
essential function. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.50)(5). In addition, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's 
daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary manages the function rather than performs the duties 
related to the function. 
A review of the facts presented in the instant record indicates that the beneficiary assumed the role of a 
function manager during his employment abroad. The record shows that the foreign entity operates a large 
scale operation with multiple tiers of management overseeing the work of professional employees, who 
possess the technical skills and knowledge required to meet the respective clients' needs. While the 
beneficiary's position admittedly included a client communication component, the percentage breakdown 
attributed to the beneficiary's former position with the foreign entity indicates that this aspect of the 
beneficiary's position did not comprise the "primary" portion of his time. Rather, the record indicates that the 
beneficiary exercised discretionary authority with respect to the projects he managed from defining each 
project's staffing requirements to choosing the strategies to be used to successfully execute the project. 
Further, a review of the appeal shows that the petitioner provided detailed explanation of the beneficiary's role 
within the organizational scheme of the foreign entity, as well as an additional organizational chart, which 
contains an in-depth depiction of the beneficiary's position in the foreign organization and clarifies how his 
position was situated as compared to those who carried out the tasks necessary to provide the services offered 
to the company's clientele. Despite the various non-qualifying tasks that were inherently part of the 
beneficiary's role as project manager, we find that the record contains sufficient evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary's employment abroad was comprised primarily of qualifying managerial-level tasks. 
The "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the applicant's 
claim is "probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the factual circumstances of 
each individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 
I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). In evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. !d. Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the 
preponderance of the evidence standard, the director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to 
determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. Having examined the evidence contained in the 
instant record according to the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, we find that the petitioner 
has provided probative credible evidence showing that the beneficiary was more likely than not employed in a 
qualifying managerial capacity. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner in the instant case has sustained that 
burden. 
(b)(6)