sustained EB-1C Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 8184735 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 29, 2020 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a supply chain management company with a 72-person staff, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its "Director of Information Technology" 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity. The Director pointed to an inconsistency in the number 
of subordinates the Beneficiary is claimed to have managed in his position abroad, noting that the 
Petitioner initially stated that the Beneficiary's team consisted of five subordinates , but later listed six 
direct reports in its response to the request for evidence. The Director stated that this inconsistency 
raised concerns about the reliability of the submitted evidence and referred to "other evidence" as the 
source for casting doubt as to the nature of the Beneficiary's job duties. The Director also determined 
that "position title or hierarchal positioning do not establish a position in a qualifying role" and 
therefore focused on the Beneficiary's job descriptions, which were deemed as lacking sufficient 
insight into the Beneficiary's daily actions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner refers to previously submitted statements from senior management of the 
U.S. and foreign entities explaining the Beneficiary's positions as head of the U.S. and foreign entities' 
IT departments and the critical nature of the IT department to the multinational organization. As in 
prior submissions , the Petitioner once again highlights the Beneficiary's key role and discretionary 
authority over the foreign and U.S. entities' IT department functions and employees who carry out the 
underlying IT tasks within those departments. The Petitioner also asserts that the Director's reference 
to "other evidence" was overly broad and therefore precluded the Petitioner from providing a 
meaningful response to the assertion. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Director did not adequately consider the Petitioner's claims 
regarding the Beneficiary's discretionary authority over the U.S. and foreign entities' respective IT 
departments, his managerial role with respect to employees who carry out the operational tasks within 
those entities' respective IT departments, and his placement as IT department head, noting senior 
management's consensus in deeming the IT function as critical to the successful operation of the entire 
multinational organization. 
Here, the record contains sufficient evidence about the Beneficiary's top-most placement within the 
IT departments of the U.S. and foreign entities, adequately demonstrating the Beneficiary's managerial 
role and his discretionary authority over the employees and activities within those departments. The 
Petitioner also adequately addressed the Director's concerns about a perceived inconsistency 
pertaining to the number of subordinates the Beneficiary has, pointing out that the initial claim was 
incorrectly based on a job listing that became outdated by the time this petition was filed. Further, we 
agree that the Director's reference to "other evidence" as the source for casting doubt as to the nature 
of the Beneficiary's job duties was ambiguous and insufficient to support an adverse finding. 
In sum, the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence and established by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the Beneficiary was and would more likely than not be employed in a managerial capacity. 
Therefore, we will sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2