sustained EB-1C Case: Processed Foods

(b)(6)
DATE: 
INRE: 
FEB 2 4 2015 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Servic( 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant 
to Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. This is a 
non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. 
All of the documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your 
case. Please be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made 
to that office. 
Thank you, 
�/�u 
f-RonRo � 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Nebraska Service Center Director denied the preference visa petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as a multinational executive or manager pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C). The petitioner is 
engaged in the production, marketing, and distribution of processed foods. It claims to be the parent company 
of the beneficiary's foreign employer, located in Canada. The petitioner 
seeks to employ the beneficiary as a Continuous Improvement Internal Consultant. 
The director denied the petition on July 28, 2014, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to this office for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it provided sufficient 
evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the U.S. in a qualifying managerial capacity. 
The petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence in support of the appeal. 1 
I. THE LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available .. . to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is 
described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the 
time of the alien's application for classification and admission into the 
United States under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 
year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or 
subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United States in order to 
continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or 
affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and managers who 
have previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that entity, 
and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis (See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
A United States employer may file a petitiOn on Form I-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
statement which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. 
In addition, Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily--
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other 
employee is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or 
function for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is 
not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of 
the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or 
executive capacity, US CIS must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the 
overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. Section lOl(a)( 44)(C) of the Act. 
II. ISSUE ON APPEAL 
A. U.S. Employment in a Managerial Capacity 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that it will employ the beneficiary in a 
qualifying managerial capacity. The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary holds an executive 
position. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
1. Facts 
The petitioner is one of the world's largest producers, distributors and marketers of consumer foods, with 
more than 100 leading U.S. brands, 34,500 employees, and worldwide revenues of $16.7 billion. 
The petitioner has offered the beneficiary the position of Continuous Improvement (CI) Internal Consultant. 
The petitioner has consistently explained that she is responsible for providing leadership for the company's CI 
initiatives within its International Manufacturing organization. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary is 
responsible for overseeing the implementation of CI strategy and programs at 20 manufacturing sites located 
outside of North America. The petitioner further explained that the beneficiary directs and influences the 
work of Regional CI Leaders, Plant CI Leaders and Regional Supply Chain Directors as part of her 
responsibility for introducing and implementing ·the petitioner's CI program across its international 
manufacturing plants. 
The petitioner provided an organizational chart for the Continuous Improvement Department showing that it 
is headed by a Vice President, Continuous Improvement & PMO, who supervises a CI Director -
The beneficiary is depicted as one of ten employees reporting to the CI Director, along 
with other CI Consultants, CI Internal Consultants and CI Leaders. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the director asked the petitioner to provide a more detailed description of the 
beneficiary's duties and to clarify the levels of management within the beneficiary's department, whether she 
directly supervises subordinates, and, if applicable, to provide evidence that the beneficiary manages an 
essential function. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided additional evidence, including a more detailed description of 
the beneficiary's duties and the proportion of time she allocates to each of her responsibilities. The petitioner 
also provided a more detailed explanation of its Continuous Improvement program, which it describes as "the 
company-wide program focused on business optimization through minimizing cost and eliminating waste." 
The petitioner emphasized that it maintains a discrete Continuous Improvement department within its world 
headquarters-based Global Business Solutions organization, which underscores the importance of this 
program. 
The petitioner further explained that the employees of the headquarters-based CI Department, including the 
beneficiary, fill senior management roles as they develop and implement critical CI policies, programs and 
initiatives for their assigned business units and functions across the organization. The petitioner emphasized 
that the beneficiary is the only international CI Internal Consultant in the department, and that her authority 
over the CI program encompasses a large manufacturing organization in 14 countries, as well as the 
International Supply Chain, which collectively employ thousands of employees. 
The petitioner established that the beneficiary has five indirect subordinates, including the supply chain 
manager for China, the senior CI Leader for Australia, the Latin America Operations Business Manager, the 
CI Manager for Europe and the CI Manager for Brazil. The record shows that these regional managers 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
receive direction from the beneficiary as they work to roll out and maintain the petitioner's CI programs and 
strategies within individual plants outside North America and across the international supply chain. 
Finally, the petitioner provided job descriptions for all the beneficiary's colleagues who report to the Director 
of Continuous Improvement at company headquarters, which clarified that each CI leader and consultant has 
a distinct area of responsibility with respect to the CI program. 
In denying the petition, the director determined that the beneficiary performs several duties that are not 
managerial in nature, does not have personnel management authority over direct reports, and cannot be 
considered a function manager because the petitioner failed to establish that she serves in a high-level position 
within the CI function. The director observed that there are "several CI consultants or leaders at her level in 
the organizational hierarchy." 
2. Analysis 
Upon review of the record, we will withdraw the director's decision and sustain the appeal. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of 
evidence that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
376 (AAO 2010). Here, the petitioner has submitted relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads us 
to conclude that the beneficiary will, more likely than not, be employed in a managerial capacity. 
In examining the claimed managerial capacity of the beneficiary, United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Service (USCIS) reviews the description of the job duties within the context of the totality of the record and 
weighs all relevant factors. These factors include the nature and scope of the petitioner's business, the 
petitioner's organizational structure and the beneficiary's position within it, the scope of the beneficiary's 
authority and its impact on the petitioner's operations, the work performed by other staff within the 
petitioner's organization; and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual 
duties and role in a business. 
The petitioner presented evidence, including a detailed description of the beneficiary's duties, which is 
sufficient to establish that her duties are primarily in nature. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary's 
critical role is to lead the petitioner's Continuous Improvement function across the company's International 
Manufacturing Organization, which encompasses manufacturing plants and international supply chain 
operations located in fourteen countries. The petitioner explained its Continuous Improvement program and 
established that it is considered an essential function within its global organization. The petitioner also 
established that the beneficiary has indirect reports who ensure that international CI strategies and initiatives 
are implemented at the regional and plant level. While the beneficiary may perform some duties that do not 
fall within the definition of "managerial capacity," the petitioner has demonstrated that such duties are 
incidental to her international oversight responsibilities. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner also established that the beneficiary, as a member of the Continuous Improvement organization 
at its world headquarters, performs at a senior level within respect to the Continuous Improvement function as 
it pertains to the company's international operations. While the beneficiary reports to a Director of CI, and 
there are several other employees who hold CI Internal Consultant positions in the same department, the 
petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary's responsibility for implementing the CI program on an 
international level represents a distinct function within the CI organization. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary manages an essential function 
within the petition organization, operates at a senior level within the petitioner's organizational hierarchy with 
respect to the international CI function she manages, and exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations 
of the CI program within respect to the international manufacturing and supply chain operations for which she 
has authority. Accordingly, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
qualifying manufacturing capacity and the appeal will be sustained. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, that burden has been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.