sustained EB-1C Case: Helicopter Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 25, 2024 In Re: 33859868 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a helicopter services company, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
general manager 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. § 
l 153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign 
employee to the United States to work in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The 
Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen that the Director also denied. The matter is now before us on 
appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will sustain the appeal. 
An immigrant visa is 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. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, must include 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 
their entry as a nonimmigrant, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United 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. § 204.5(j)(3). 
The Petitioner stated that it has provided helicopter air tours in thel larea for nearly thirty 
years. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was employed abroad for its Canadian affiliate as 
a helicopter pilot instructor and manager of its search and rescue training operations from December 
2019 to Febrnary 2023. As discussed, the Director denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity as asserted. More 
specifically, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that he qualified as a personnel 
manager based on his supervision of professional subordinates abroad. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary was employed abroad as a function manager, 
overseeing an essential function of the foreign employer, namely its search and rescue training 
department. 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 lOl ( 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 pe1form, 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 
beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
Upon de novo review, we conclude the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the Beneficiary was employed abroad as a function manager. The Petitioner submitted sufficient 
evidence to establish that the Beneficiary managed the foreign employer's essential search and rescue 
department accounting for a significant portion of its operations abroad. The Petitioner further 
demonstrated on appeal that the Beneficiary was employed in a senior position and primarily relieved 
from non-qualifying operational duties by a subordinate chief flight instrnctor and several other 
subordinate flight instrnctors providing search and rescue training to military, police, and civilian 
clients. The Petitioner sufficiently established that the Beneficiary was employed abroad as a function 
manager and is eligible for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2