sustained EB-1C Case: Information Processing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13904112 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 25, 2021 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, an information processing, manufacturing, sales, and services company, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as a portfolio manager 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. § l 153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity or that he was employed in a managerial or executive capacity in his fonner position 
abroad. The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider; however, the Director 
dismissed the motions and affirmed its denial of the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director did not consider additional evidence it submitted on 
motion and asserts that the provided evidence demonstrates the Beneficiary would qualify as a 
personnel and function manager in the United States. The Petitioner further contends that the 
Beneficiary was employed in this same capacity in his former position abroad. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the record is sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary would 
more likely than not act in a managerial capacity in the United States. The Petitioner submitted a 
detailed and credible duty description for the Beneficiary in the United States indicating he would be 
primarily engaged in qualifying managerial tasks overseeing several subordinate supervisors and 
professionals , including program and project managers, technical leads, application architects, lead 
and application developers, amongst others. The submitted evidence also sufficiently establishes that 
the Beneficiary would have the authority to hire, fire, and take other personnel actions with respect to 
the members of his department and indicates that he would exercise discretion over its day-to-day 
operations. Further, the provided evidence demonstrating that the members of the Beneficiary's 
department more likely than not relieve him from primarily performing non-qualifying operational 
level tasks. As such, the evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary would qualify as a personnel 
manager in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
In addition, the submitted evidence also adequately establishes that the Beneficiary acted in a similar 
role abroad prior to his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant. Much like the Beneficiary's 
position in the United States, the provided evidence sufficiently demonstrates that he more likely than 
not oversaw supervisory and professional subordinates; namely quality leads, project leads, project 
managers, and their professional subordinates. Further, the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary 
had personnel authority over subordinate managers and that these managers and their subordinates 
primarily relieved him from performing non-qualifying operational duties abroad. 
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. 
2