sustained EB-1C Case: Health And Social Services

.
MATTER OF 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 29, 2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a professional organization dedicated to strengthening health and social services around 
the world, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its senior quality improvement adviser 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and that she would be employed in the 
United States in a managerial capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Director incorrectly interpreted the 
submitted evidence , thereby leading to the conclusion that claims made in support of the instant 
petition were inconsistent with claims previously made in support of an L-1 B specialized knowledge 
petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. DISCUSSION 
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 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a 
beneficiary under section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. A labor 
certification is not required for this classification. The Fmm I-140 must be accompanied by 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 work in the United 
.
Matter of 
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). 
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 or executive capacity as defined at section 
10l(a)(44) ofthe Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44). 
In denying the petition, the Director first addressed the Beneficiary ' s proposed employment finding 
that the job duties provided in support of a previously filed L-1 B petition and those offered in 
support of the instant petition are inconsistent and that such inconsistencies must be resolved through 
the submission of independent, objective evidence. See Matter (~( Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 
(BIA 1988). The Director also found that reference to job duties that would involve managing both 
personnel and an essential function are indicative of a "hybrid manager" claim, which the 
regulations do not expressly permit. With regard to the Beneficiary 's employment 
abroad , the 
Director similarly found that the job descriptions submitted in support of the L-1 B and current 
petitions, respectively , are inconsistent and thus preclude a finding that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Upon review of the petition and supporting evidence, including the evidence submitted on appeal, 
which included a legal brief comparing the job descriptions submitted in support of the previously 
filed and current petitions, we will withdraw the Director's decision. 
First, we note that despite key distinctions between a function and a personnel manager where the 
former primarily focuses on managing an essential function within the organization and the latter 
primarily oversees subordinates who are supervisory , professional, or managerial employees , 
managing an essential function can, and often does, include elements of personnel management, as is 
evident in the matter at hand. Further, as pointed out on appeal, the Beneficiary is not required to 
perform the duties of her proposed position at the time of filing. The fact that a beneficiary currently 
performs managerial duties while in L-1 B nonimmigrant status does not establish that he or she 
would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. 
Further, while we acknowledge that not all of the Beneficiary's time in her respective positions has 
been or would be entirely devoted to managerial job duties, the law does not require that she allocate 
100% of her time to managerial tasks, so long as the Petitioner can submit sufficient evidence 
establish that the non-managerial tasks were and would be only incidental to the foreign and 
proposed positions, respectively. An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to 
produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See sections 10 I (a)( 44 )(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one 
"primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter ~~Church 
Scientology Int "!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
In sum, we find that the Director placed undue emphasis on the distinctions between the evidence 
offered in support of the L-1 B petition and the evidence provided in support of the instant petition. 
2 
.
Matter of 
Therefore, after reviewing the Beneficiary's job description within the context of her proposed 
position with the U.S. entity and the U.S. entity's organizational hierarchy, we find that the 
Petitioner has met its burden in establishing that the Beneficiary would more likely than not be 
employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. 
Likewise, we find that a comprehensive review of the Beneficiary's job duties in her position abroad 
along with her placement within the foreign division 's organizational hierarchy and the availability 
of professional subordinates to relieve the Beneficiary from having to allocate her time primarily to 
the performance of non-managerial tasks similarly indicates that the Beneficiary was more likely 
than not employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
II. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has overcome both stated grounds for denial, the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of ID# 454695 (AAO June 29, 2017) 
3