sustained EB-1C Case: Pharmaceuticals

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 26, 2023 In Re: 26352227 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in the research, development, and distribution of pharmaceutical 
products, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its associate director for HCP engagement 
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 a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity prior to his 
entry to the United States as a nonimmigrant. The Director further concluded that the Beneficiary 
would not be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 1 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director's decision 
contains erroneous conclusions of both fact and law, mischaracterizes the nature of the submitted job 
descriptions for the Beneficiary, makes unfounded assumptions regarding the company's 
organizational structure, does not acknowledge or address all evidence submitted in response to a 
request for evidence (RFE) and, as such, did not provide a sufficient explanation for the denial of the 
petition. 
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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will sustain the appeal. 
An immigrant visa is 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 
1 The Petitioner indicated on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, that it would submit a brief and/or evidence 
to our office within 30 days of filing the appeal. However, the record indicates that no supplement to the appeal was 
submitted. While this appeal was pending, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved a Form 1-140 
filed by the Petitioner in February 2023 , granting the Beneficiary classification as a multinational manager or executive 
under section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act. 
capacity, and seeks to enter the United States to continue to render managerial or executive services 
to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 
We agree that the Director's decision contains factual errors and insufficient reasoning and analysis 
to support the conclusions reached. First, with respect to the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment, 
the decision contains no analysis of the specific evidence the Petitioner submitted in support of its 
claim that it will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. Rather, the Director concluded, 
without further explanation or discussion of the facts presented, that "a majority of the beneficiary's 
proposed duties ... will involve the operational activities of the petitioning company due to the nature 
of the business and the description of the beneficiary's duties." 
Regarding the Beneficiary's employment abroad, the decision misstates what was requested in the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) and does not acknowledge or address most of the evidence 
provided in the Petitioner's response to that request. In addition, the decision repeatedly refers to the 
Beneficiary's former position as that of "an engagement manager who managed client engagements" 
and as a "sales manager of an engagement for an end client of the organization," characterizations of 
the position that are not supported by the record. Finally, the Director dismissed, without sufficient 
basis, the probative value of the foreign entity's organizational chart, noting that "in actuality" the 
company's managers and executives are "higher up in the hierarchy and not the individuals shown on 
the evidence provided." 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner met its burden to establish that the Beneficiary, 
more likely than not, was employed abroad and will be employed in the United States, in a managerial 
capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner has consistently indicated that 
the Beneficiary was employed abroad as a function manager and would serve as a function manager 
in the United States. The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary may not 
supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing 
an "essential function" within the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(44)(ii). 
If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that "(1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core 
to the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; 
(4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and (5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day 
operations." Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
In his U.S. role, the Beneficiary is responsible for overseeing the brand strategy function for two of 
the company's multiple sclerosis treatments. The Petitioner provided a detailed description of his 
duties, explained how product brand strategy is an essential and clearly defined activity within the 
organization and how the Beneficiary will primarily perform managerial duties related to this function, 
with discretion over the day-to-day operations of the function assigned to him. The Petitioner's letters 
were supported by evidence of the Beneficiary's work product, organizational charts showing his 
senior placement within his function, and explanations as to how he relies on the support of cross­
functional teams to assist him with non-managerial duties associated with the function he manages. 
2 
The record shows that he served in a similar position as a product manager for the Petitioner's foreign 
affiliate in the year immediately preceding his transfer to the United States in L-lA nonimmigrant 
status, where he was responsible for overseeing the marketing strategy and operations function for the 
launch of a new migraine treatment product in the French market. 
While the Petitioner's detailed description and breakdown of the Beneficiary's duties indicates that he 
is called on to apply his business and technical expertise in performing some of his responsibilities, 
the record establishes that both the foreign and U.S. positions primarily involve the performance of 
higher-level duties that are consistent with the definition of managerial capacity at section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
In sum, the Petitioner has met its burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad, and will be employed in the United States, in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3