sustained EB-1C Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 13, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of electrical components, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary 
as its human resources 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 )(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 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 farther found that "the evidence does not 
establish that this is a valid job offer and the beneficiary will be working for the petitioner foll-time." 
In the discussion of the U.S. job offer, the Director noted that the Beneficiary has been dividing her 
time between the United States and Mexico and the Petitioner "has not provided a timeline and 
schedules to establish the amount of time the beneficiary spends in each location." The Director also 
questioned how the Beneficiary would manage subordinates employed by a Mexican affiliate, and 
found that "the management of employees who are not employed by the petitioning company ... does 
not permit a beneficiary to be classified as a managerial employee. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence 1 and asserts that "international travel and 
oversight of functions and professionals across international borders are not inconsistent with the 
existence of a permanent offer [of employment] in the United States." The Petitioner notes that it 
clearly explained that the Beneficiary's former position with its Mexican affiliate and current position 
in the United States are the same, and involve oversight of all human resources activities across a 
geographic region that includes company locations in both Mexico and the United States. Further, the 
Petitioner emphasizes that it has consistently stated that the company seeks to permanently relocate 
the Beneficiary's human resources management role to the United States, where she will be required 
to oversee both Mexican staff and a growing team ofU.S.-based human resources staff The Petitioner 
states that the Petitioner and its Mexican affiliate "make up a jointly managed region within the 
organizational structure of [the Petitioner's] family of companies" and suggests that the Director 
misunderstood this structure. 
1 The Petitioner submitted evidence both in supp01t of the appeal and in response to a request for evidence (RFE) issued 
by our office. 
Matter of M-, LLC 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred by observing that the Petitioner "did not 
provide job duties, educational levels, salaries ... of each subordinate that the beneficiary supervises," 
noting that it did in fact provide organizational charts and formal job descriptions, as well as 
educational levels and salaries, for the Beneficiary's subordinates. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner has correctly pointed to errors in the Director's 
analysis, which does not adequately consider the Petitioner's claims and supporting evidence. We 
find that the Petitioner has offered the Beneficiary foll-time permanent employment in the United 
States and agree with the Petitioner that her continued oversight of employees based in Mexico does 
preclude such a finding. 
We also find that the Petitioner has supplemented the record with sufficient evidence to establish that 
the Beneficiary was and would be employed in a managerial capacity as defined at section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(44)(A). The record establishes that the Beneficiary has 
managed and will continue to manage a department of the organization, supervise subordinate 
supervisors and professionals, make personnel decisions, and exercise authority over the day-to-day 
human resources activities of the company for her assigned region within the international 
organization. Further, the record establishes that she had and will have sufficient subordinate staff to 
relieve her from significant involvement in non-managerial tasks, such that her duties were and would 
be primarily managerial in nature. 
In sum, we find that the Petitioner has overcome the grounds for denial. Therefore, we will sustain 
the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofM-, LLC, ID# 2338819 (AAO June 13, 2019) 
2