sustained EB-1C Case: Liquid Fuels And Chemicals

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23095674 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 9, 2023 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner is a multinational organization operating in the liquid fuels and chemicals industry. At 
the time of filing, it claimed a gross income of over $20 billion and a staff of over 30,000 employees, 
1200 of whom were claimed as employees of the U.S. entity. The Petitioner seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its "VP Operations West Plan - Ethylene, Utilities & Maintenance" with a 
proffered wage of $230,000 under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(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 Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity. The Director determined that the Petitioner provided inconsistent 
organizational charts pertaining to the Beneficiary's foreign employment and determined that the 
Beneficiary's job description indicates that he primarily performed "production related duties." 
Likewise, the Director determined that evidence pertaining to the proposed employment included 
inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's subordinate staff and contained a job description indicating 
that the Beneficiary's proposed job duties would be primarily operational in nature . 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the denial, pointing out that the Director incorrectly described the 
petitioning organization as a "financial advisory services and business process management," which 
is inconsistent with information contained in the petition form. The Petitioner asserts that the 
Director's error "casts doubt on the extensive and thorough review" of the petition. The Petitioner 
also addresses the Director's confusion over an internal code representing an employee's position title 
and corrects an error in a previously submitted organizational chart, highlighting the Beneficiary's 
management of over 700 direct and indirect subordinates and asserting that the Beneficiary had ample 
support from those subordinates to relieve him from having to primarily perform non-managerial 
duties. 1 In addition, the Petitioner elaborates on the Beneficiary's job duties and respective roles 
within the foreign and U.S. entities, asserting that the Beneficiary's job description should be 
considered within the context of a more comprehensive review of the record. The Petitioner urges us 
to consider the Beneficiary's oversight of $71 million in "variable costs" and his organizational 
1 The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary 's employment abroad was in a managerial capacity. 
placement as head of a critical division within the foreign entity, as demonstrated in several previously 
submitted organizational charts. Regarding the Beneficiary's proposed position, the Petitioner 
elaborates on aspects of the Beneficiary's proposed position, similarly highlighting the Beneficiary's 
oversight of a large budget totaling over $160 million, as well as his top placement of a critical division 
and the layers of managers and professionals who would be subordinate to the Beneficiary and would 
elevate his position to that of an executive. 2 
In sum, the Petitioner has adequately described the critical nature of the Beneficiary's respective roles 
and established that the respective roles have and would be at the top of critical divisions of two 
complex organizational hierarchies. As such, the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence establishing 
that the Beneficiary was more likely than not employed abroad in a managerial capacity and would 
more likely than not be employed in the United States in an executive capacity. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
conclude that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof and we will therefore sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2 The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States would be in an executive capacity 
2