sustained EB-1C Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-& C-, INC. U-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 8, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a management consulting firm, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
"Engagement Manager" 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 record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary had been or would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity abroad or for the Petitioner. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Beneficiary's position abroad and his 
current role for the Petitioner are both managerial in nature. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa available to a beneficiary who, in the three 
years preceding the filing of the petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one 
year in a managerial or executive capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to 
render managerial or executive services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. 
A United States employer may file Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a 
beneficiary under section 203(b )( 1 )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. The petition 
must include a statement from an authorized official of the petitioning United States employer which 
demonstrates that the beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity tor at 
least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to 
work in the United States for the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and 
that the prospective U.S. employer has been doing business tor at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.50)(3). 
.
Matter of M-& C-, Inc. U-S-
II. DISCUSSION 
The Director found that the evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary had been or would be 
employed in a managerial capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(44). 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Beneficiary"s positiOn for the petitioning 
organization functioned at a senior level but that the descriptions, along with the time allocated to 
the Beneficiary's duties, did not support a managerial or executive position. The Director 
specifically noted that the Petitioner had not provided the Beneficiary 's specific daily tasks as 
requested in the request for evidence (RFE). The Director found that as the duties for the U.S. 
position are analogous to the foreign position, the record also did not support a conclusion that the 
U.S. position is a manager or executive position. 
Upon review of the petition and evidence , including the evidence submitted on appeaL we find that 
the Petitioner has overcome the grounds for denial articulated by the Director. 
The Petitioner is an international consulting firm which assists corporations, government entities, 
and charitable organizations worldwide in solving major business problems . The firm operates out 
of 100 offices in over 60 countries and employs more than 20,000 people. It employs 5,600 
employees in the Unites States and its gross annual income is in excess of 200 million dollars in the 
United States. The Petitioner explains that the Beneficiary previously worked in the business 
technology department of its organization , a department that is a cross-industry , cross-functional 
global office defined by its consultants' expertise in business technology and that the Beneficiary 
will continue to work in a similar capacity for the U.S. organization. 1 
The Beneficiary previously worked in the petitioning organization's office in the position of 
engagement manager for one year prior to entering the United States to work in the New York office 
in a similar capacity. The Petitioner's initial description of duties indicated that the Beneficiary 
would supervise professional employees. However , the Petitioner did not allocate the Beneficiary's 
time spent on the specific duties and the description also included duties that appeared to involve 
non-qualifying duties. The Petitioner did not adequately clarify the proportion of duties spent on 
qualifying and non-qualifying duties in response to the Director's RFE. Accordingly, the record was 
not sufficiently clear to find that the Beneficiary had and would continue to perform in a managerial 
capacity. 
On appeal, however , the Petitioner submits sufficient evidence, including descriptions of the 
Beneficiary's previous and intended duties that demonstrate he has and will primarily manage a 
component of the organization (specific business technology consulting projects). Although the 
Beneficiary may lead presentations for clients and lead client teams in implementing 
1 On appeal , the Petitioner states that since the filing of the petition , the Beneficiar y has been promoted to the position of 
Associate Partner , one of the most senior position s within the firm. 
2 
Matter r?f M-& C-. Inc. U-S-
recommendations, the record shows that the Beneficiary's primary responsibility has been and will 
continue to be supervising and controlling the work of his subordinates. Additionally, the Petitioner 
sufficiently explains that the Beneficiary's subordinates occupy professional positions. The 
Petitioner describes the work of the Beneficiary's subordinates in researching and analyzing to 
create project plans and the descriptions are sufficient to demonstrate that the positions require the 
services of individuals with a bachelor's or higher degree. Thus, the subordinate positions are 
professional positions. The roles filled by the Beneficiary's subordinates also relieve the Beneficiary 
from primarily performing non-qualifying duties. The Petitioner has also sufficiently described the 
Beneficiary's authority over his subordinates and how the Beneficiary exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the consulting projects under his authority. 
Taking into account the clarification of the Beneficiary's duties and time allocated to those duties as 
described on appeal, as well as the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinates and the Beneficiary's 
authority over those subordinates, we find that the record establishes that the Beneficiary has and 
will manage a major component or function of the petitioning organization and has and will 
primarily perform managerial duties for the foreign entity and the Petitioner. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity and will 
be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of M-&C-. Inc. U-S-, ID# 779908 (AAO Nov. 8, 20 17) 
3