sustained EB-1C Case: Industrial Engineering

i&nt$,-in2 ,- {!;.,t~ &kpd to 
E?T-,T ,- ., .; < ..>. , ir ..- .- ... !:.:GT!~ ~in~;~am;$n:ed 
gz.,...,- c,r.,1.>r: : - -. ~f irf;.isonat privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
LIN 07 006 5 1883 
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. 5 I 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
6 
dministrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. 
' 
The petitioner is a limited liability company organized in the State of Delaware, with its headquarters in 
Portland, Oregon, that engages in the manufacturing of heavy duty vehicles. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its industrial engineering manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the 
beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On November 3,2007, the director denied the petition determining that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad, and will be employed in the United States, in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's conclusions and submits a brief and multiple exhibits in support of 
the appeal. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(I) 
 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 the firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that entity, 
and are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a statement 
that indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. Such a 
statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(5). 
Section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily 
I. manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
. . 
11. 
 supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
. . . 
111. 
 if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is 
directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
iv. 
 exercises discretion over the day to day operations of the activity or function 
for which the employee has authority. 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 lOl(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee 
primarily 
I. 
 directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
of the organization; 
. . 
11. 
 establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
... 
111. 
 exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision making; and 
iv. 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the 
board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In a letter dated September 25, 2006 in support of the petition, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary was 
employed by Freightliner Canada, Ltd., a Canadian company that is indirectly owned by the U.S. company, from 
September 1997 through December 2003. Specifically, the beneficiary served as the foreign entity's engineering 
manager from September 2002 to December 2003. The petitioner indicated that, in that role, the beneficiary 
headed the foreign company's process engineering and Kaizen groups and oversaw a department with 15 
employees and a budget of over $1 million. The petitioner submitted an organizational chart dated November I, 
Page 4 
2003 showing that the beneficiary was one of seven managers under the plant manager of the foreign entity's St. 
Thomas Truck Manufacturing Plant. The chart shows that as engineering manager, the beneficiary supervised 
fifteen engineers, engineering specialists and technicians. 
In the same letter, the petitioner indicated that since December 2003, the beneficiary has been in the United States 
in L-1A status working for the U.S. company in the capacity of industrial engineering manager. The petitioner 
described the beneficiary's managerial responsibilities within the U.S. company and indicated that he supervises 
more than 20 industrial engineers, professionals and staff. The petitioner submitted organizational charts showing 
that the beneficiary is one of seven managers reporting to the director of the Corporate Manufacturing Engineering 
division of the U.S. company, and that as the manager of industrial engineering, the beneficiary supervises twenty 
employees, including six 'group leaderslengineers, who in turn supervise fourteen other engineers, technicians or 
specialists. 
On July 23, 2007, the director issued a request for further evidence (RFE), noting, among other things, that the 
record does not adequately demonstrate that the beneficiary has been or will be primarily acting in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The director noted that the petitioner provided little information regarding the duties performed 
by the beneficiary at the foreign entity. Further, the director noted that the description of the proposed U.S. position 
was broad and undefined and did not adequately breakdown the actual duties the beneficiary would perform. 
Accordingly, the director requested a detailed and comprehensive description of the beneficiary's position abroad 
and proposed position in the United States, which clearly define the specific duties of each position and delineate 
the proportion of time devoted to such duties. The director also requested specific information regarding the job 
titles and duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees. 
In response, the petitioner supplemented the previous descriptions of the beneficiary's positions abroad and in the 
United States with further explanation of the beneficiary's managerial responsibilities in both companies, along 
with descriptions of the job titles and responsibilities of the beneficiary's subordinates in both companies, as 
requested. 
On November 3, 2007, the director denied the petition, finding that the record is insufficient to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. Specifically, the director stated 
that the information provided in response to the RFE still failed to clearly indicate the beneficiary's duties abroad. 
Further, the director noted that while the beneficiary supervises other employees, there is insufficient indication of 
the level of authority he had over such employees, such as whether he had the authority to hire and fire. As such, 
the director found, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary's position abroad met all four prongs of 
the definition of "managerial capacity." With respect to the beneficiary's position in the United States, the director 
observed that while the petitioner provided an overview of the areas of responsibility within the beneficiary's 
department, the petitioner did not define or provide any additional information regarding the beneficiary's specific 
responsibilities in relations to these areas, such that it could be determined whether the beneficiary would be acting 
in a primarily executive or managerial capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's conclusions and submits a brief addressing the director's objections 
as well as further evidence in support of the appeal. In his brief, counsel summarized the evidence previously 
submitted in support of the petition and contends that on its face, the evidence is clearly sufficient to establish 
that the beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
capacity. 
 Counsel contends that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) applied too narrow an 
interpretation to the job descriptions submitted, and that, read within the context of the heavy duty vehicle 
industry, the evidence submitted is sufficient to meet all four prongs of the definition of "managerial capacity." 
Counsel submits additional evidence to support these claims on appeal, including: a detailed chart 
demonstrating how the beneficiary's positions in the United States and abroad, as described in previous 
submissions, meet each of the criteria under the definition of "management capacity;" a breakdown of the 
percentage of time the beneficiary spent and will spend on different categories of duties in both positions; and a 
letter from the controller of the U.S. company verifying that, in his position in the U.S. company, the 
beneficiary has control over a departmental budget of approximately $20 million. 
Upon review, the AAO will withdraw the decision of the director and sustain the appeal. 
Beyond the required description of the beneficiary's job duties, CIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the petitioner's 
organizational structure, the duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees 
to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the petitioner's business, and any 
other factors that will contribute to a complete understanding of a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. In this matter, the AAO finds that the petitioner has established that the beneficiary was employed by 
the foreign entity, and will be employed by the U.S. entity, in a primarily managerial capacity. In response to 
the director's denial, counsel has provided a brief and additional evidence addressing and overcoming the 
relevant points of contention with regard to the beneficiary's duties in the context of his role within the foreign 
organization as well as the U.S. entity. The AAO is satisfied that the evidence of record sufficiently 
demonstrates that in his position with the foreign entity, the beneficiary was responsible for managing a major 
component of the organization; supervised and controlled the work of a team of supervisory and/or professional 
employees over whom he had the authority to hire, fire or take other personnel actions; and had the authority to 
exercise discretion over the day-to-day operations of his department. Similarly, the petitioner has sufficiently 
demonstrated that in his position as the manager of the industrial engineering department of the U.S. company, 
encompassing all six of the company's trucking plants in the United States, Canada and Mexico, the beneficiary 
will be acting in a primarily managerial capacity. Based upon the sum of the documents submitted, the 
petitioner has established that the beneficiary was primarily employed abroad and would be primarily employed 
in the United States in a qualifying managerial capacity. See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
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. 5 1361. Here, that burden has been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.