sustained EB-1C Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
DATE: APR 2 8 2015 
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 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 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 please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. All of the documents related to this matter have been 
returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that any further inquiry that 
you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
:;zu, 
tvv Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based 
immigrant visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. 
We will sustain the appeal. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify the 
beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b )(l)(C) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. The petitioner, an information technology consulting service company, 
seeks to employ the beneficiary as its principal/business risk manager. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that: (1) the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the 
beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion 
and forwarded the appeal to us for review. The petitioner submits a brief and additional 
evidence on appeal. 
I. THE LAW 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) 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 supervisor1S supervisory duties unless the 
employees supervised are professional. 
II. ISSUES ON APPEAL 
A. Foreign Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
The first issu e to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary was 
employed by the petitioner's foreign affiliate in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
1. Facts 
The record before us consists of the petitioner' s initial evidence, the director's request for 
evidence and the petitioner's response, and the petitioner's detail ed brief and additional evidence 
submitted on appeal. 
The petitioner provided evidence that the beneficiary worked for its foreign affiliate in 
India from June 2009 until December 2011, prior to ent ering the United States in L-lA 
nonimmigrant status in January 2012. The petitioner explained that from 2009 until 2010, the 
beneficiary served in the position of Prin cipal/Deli very Partner assigned to oversee the planning 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
and execution of information technology consult ing projects and other business development 
activities with respect to a major company client. Specifically, the petitioner indicates that the 
beneficiary supervised subordinate project managers and delivery managers responsible for 
client projects, and that these em plo yees supervised professional consultants who provided 
services to the client. The petitioner's evidence includes a chart providing the names, job titles, 
educational level and brief descriptions of their duties and project responsibilities for the 
benefici ary ' s direct subordinates. 
From 2010 to 2011, the petitioner indicates that the beneficiary held the position of 
Principal/Global Head of Operations and Staffing responsible for "overseeing staffing levels and 
fulfillment for open po si ti ons within the company's banking unit at a global level" in addition to 
performing other managerial duties that were fully discussed within the petition. The petitioner 
explained that during this time, the beneficiary managed a major expansion of the company's 
operations which required him to oversee the recruitment of over one thousand professional 
employees to stati a new office. The petitioner provided an organizational chart identifying the 
beneficiary's su bordin ates in his position as Global Head of Operations, which included an 
operations manager, multiple operations consultants, and a staffing lead. 
The petitioner also listed the beneficiary's responsibilities as well as the percentage of time 
allocated to each of the duties described for both of his positions with the foreign entity. 
The director's decision was based on a fi nding that the petitioner had not provided sufficient 
evidence of the number and types of subordinates managed by the beneficiary as delivery 
partner, and had not provided a detailed description of the beneficiary' s duties as Global H ead of 
Operations and Staffing. 
On appeal, the petitioner reiterates the bene ficiary ' s prev iously stated duties, further explains and 
documents the foreign affiliate's staffing levels, and further delineates the two distinct roles the 
beneficiary held while employed by the foreign entity. 
2. A naly sis 
Upon review, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign 
entity in a managerial capacity. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a 
preponderance of evidence that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Here, the petitioner has submitted relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence that leads us to conclude that the beneficiary was more likely 
than not employed in a qualifying managerial capacity in both his positions with the foreign 
entity. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
In examining the claimed managerial capacity of the beneficiary, we review job duty description 
within the context of the totality of the record and weigh all relevant factors. These factors 
include the nature and scope of the petitioner's business, the petitioner's organizational structure 
and the beneficiary's position within it, the scope of the beneficiary's authority, the work 
performed by other staff within the petitioner's organization, and any other factors contributing 
to understanding of the beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
The petitioner has established that as Delivery Partner, the beneficiary managed the work of 
several senior level employees who managed consulting projects and supervised subordinate 
professionals responsible for delivery of projects to a key client. The petitioner provided 
evidence that it has a large organization devoted to this particular client and that the beneficiary 
managed a component of that organization, supervised subordinate managers and professionals, 
had the authority to hire, fire and make personnel decisions, and exercised discretion over the 
day-to-day activities of delivering these projects to the client. Further, the petitioner established 
that the beneficiary primarily performed these duties and that any non-qualifying duties he 
performed were tangential to his managerial role. 
In his latter role as Global Head of Operations and Staffing, the beneficiary continued to work at 
a senior level within the same client-specific division, with responsibility for all IT recruitment 
and staffing functions on a global basis. The record reflects that he managed a defined 
component ofthe foreign entity's business, had ongoing responsibility for managing subordinate 
managers and professionals, hiring and firing, and exercised discretion over the day-to-day 
activities of this large-scale and on-going recruitment effort. 
The petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary's duties in 
both of these roles were primarily managerial in nature, while the day-to-day non-managerial 
tasks associated with the activities he managed were performed by other staff within the foreign 
entity's organization. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Accordingly, 
the director's determination that the beneficiary was not employed in a qualifying capacity 
abroad will be withdrawn. 
B. U.S. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
The remaining issue is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary will be employed in 
the United States in a qualifying managerial capacity. 
1. Facts 
The petitioner's Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, indicates that the beneficiary 
will be employed as a principal/business risk manager for its large computer consulting company 
that grossed $496.49 million in 2012 and employs 1,900 in the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner describes the beneficiary as a senior level manager with "overall responsibility for 
managing the Delivery Excellence and Business Risk Management in the Banking and Capital 
Market Domain.,, The petitioner explained that he is charged with "ensuring all current contracts 
and potential deals are thoroughly reviewed internally and all approvals are taken before the 
contracts are signed or the new business proposals are presented to the client." Further, the 
beneficiary's role is to "evaluate, assess, and highlight all delivery, business, operational and 
financial risks in current and potential business deals for North America Banking and Capital 
Market Business Units." The petitioner stated that the beneficiary regularly reviews and 
approves or disapproves deals worth a total of $70 to $80 million each month. 
The pe titio ne r provides a list of the beneficiary's 12 responsibilities as well as a percentage of 
time allocated to specific required duties and tasks. The petitioner also submitted an 
organizational chart dated July 2012 depicting the beneficiary as one of five direct subordinates 
to Global Business Risk Manager in the company's Financial Services Global 
Business Unit, a senior vice president-level employee. The beneficiary is identified as Business 
Relationship Manager for North America for the Capital Markets and Banking business units. 
The director subsequently issued a request for evidence and ultimately denied the petition 
concluding that the petitioner provided insufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary is 
primarily performing qualifying duties or primarily managing a function. The director could not 
determine that the beneficiary would have employees to relieve him from primarily performing 
non-qualifying duties. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary will serve at the "highest levels of the 
company" and that his position is "at the level of Principal." The petitioner states that the 
beneficiary's "responsibilities are overwhelmingly concerned with management and oversight of 
the critically important function of ensuring that the company takes on client engagements and 
new business that is profitable and within its operational resources." The petitioner explains that 
the beneficiary relies upon numerous employees such as financial analysts, operations analysts, 
accountants, project managers, legal staff and human resource managers to perform the tasks 
necessary to his successful management of this critical function. The petitioner also provides 
business documentation fmther demonstrating the beneficiary's role as manager of the business 
risk management function for the banking and capital markets business sectors in North 
America. 
2. Analysis 
Upon review, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary will be employed in the United 
States as a function manager. 
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 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
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.F.R. § 204.5(j)(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. 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 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act 
(requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties). 
The petitioner has established that Business Risk Management is an essential function within its 
international organization and that the beneficiary, as Principal and Business Risk Manager for 
North America, manages this function across multiple clients and business units in this region. 
The petitioner also established that he is placed at a senior level in the group's organizational 
hierarchy with respect to the function managed, as his direct supervisor is a senior vice president 
with global responsibility. The petitioner has provided specific examples of the beneficiary's 
discretionary authority to oversee this function, by relying on other staff to perform the financial, 
legal and technical research and analysis needed for him to ultimately determine whether to 
approve or reject contracts valued at up to millions of dollars. Finally, the petitioner established 
that he primarily performs high-level managerial duties, while any non-qualifying duties he 
performs remain tangential to his role. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary will be employed in a qualifying 
managerial capacity and the appeal will be sustained. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has met that burden. Accordingly, the director's 
decision dated September 24, 2014 will be withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.