sustained EB-1C Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-L-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 26, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology services company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as a "Senior Delivery 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. § 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 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. In addition, the Director determined that the Beneficiary had not been employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity abroad prior to his entry into the United States as an L-1 A 
nonimmigrant. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager in the United 
States based on his supervision of subordinate managers and professionals. The Petitioner also 
contends that the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel manager 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. First, the Petitioner has 
submitted a detailed U.S. duty description for the Beneficiary indicating that he would be primarily 
engaged in qualifying managerial tasks overseeing a department including three subordinate managers 
supervising several information technology professionals providing services to a high profile client, 
I I 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 submitted evidence demonstrates that the members of the Beneficiary 's department would 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). 
Matter of W-L-
For similar reasons, the Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary was more likely than not 
employed as a personnel manager abroad prior to his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant 
in 2015. Again, the Petitioner submitted a detailed foreign duty description for the Beneficiary 
indicating that he was primarily engaged in qualifying managerial tasks and oversaw a department 
with eight subordinate managers supervising several information technology professionals. The 
submitted evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that the Beneficiary was primarily relieved 
from performing non-qualifying operational duties by the numerous members of his department 
abroad. Therefore, the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel manager 
abroad. 
The totality of the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary would more likely than not be employed 
in a managerial capacity in the United States and that he was employed in a managerial capacity 
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. 
Cite as Matter of W-L-, ID# 3094289 (AAO Aug. 26, 2019) 
2