sustained EB-1C Case: Revenue Cycle Management

(b)(6)
DATE: SEP 0 5 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. 
Than 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Texas Service Center Director denied the preference visa petitiOn and 
subsequently granted a motion to reopen and affirmed it's decision. The matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner is engaged in "revenue cycle management," and seeks to employ the beneficiary 
as its Vice President, Revenue Cycle Management & Location Head. Accordingly, the petitioner 
endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
The director affirmed his initial decision, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish that 
the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the 
petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a 
qualifying managerial capacity. Counsel for 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. 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis (See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under 
section 203(b )(1 )(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. 
II. ISSUE ON APPEAL 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that it will employ the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which 
the employee primarily--
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component 
or function of the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, 
or function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives , the board of directors , or stockholders of the 
organization. 
Finally, if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a 
managerial or executive capacity, USCIS must take into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization . 
Section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
III. Analysis 
Upon review of the record, the AAO withdraws the director's decision and sustains the appeal. 
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. This review takes into account the description of a beneficiary's duties, the 
beneficiary's position within the organizational hierarchy, the presence of subordinate 
employees, the employm ent and remuneration of those employees, the nature of the petitioner' s 
business operation s, and any other evidence that contributes to a complete understanding of a 
beneficiary's true role in the business. The evidence must substantiate that the duties of the 
beneficiary correspond to his placement in the organization's structural hierarchy; artificial tiers 
of subordinate employees and inflated job titles are not probative and will not establish that an 
organization is sufficiently complex to support an executive position. 
Ultimately, the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). If USCIS fails to believe the facts 
avowed in the petition are true, then those assertions may be rejected. Section 204(b) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); see also Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
The petitioner has submitted relevant, probative , and credible evidence that leads the AAO to 
conclude that the beneficiary will, more likely than not, be employed in a managerial capacity. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The petitioner presented a detailed description of the beneficiary's duties. The petitioner stated 
that the beneficiary's role with the petitioner is critical as he "manages departments that control 
major accounts for the Petitioner" and manages a team that will include one director, five 
supervisors, two team leads, one manager and 47 subordinates. The petitioner's organizational 
structure is sufficiently complex to support the beneficiary in a managerial position, and the 
beneficiary's job duties indicate that most of his time will be performing managerial duties. The 
petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in 
the U.S. in a managerial capacity. 
The "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the 
applicant's claim is "probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the 
factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 2010) (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). In evaluating the 
evidence, the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. 
!d. Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, 
the director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, 
both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the 
fact to be proven is probably true. 
Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is "probably true" or "more 
likely than not," the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the standard of proof. See U.S. v. 
Cardozo-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50 
percent probability of something occurring). If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is 
appropriate for the director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the 
director to believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In v1sa 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.