sustained EB-1C Case: Road And Highway Contracting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-C-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 4, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a road and highway contracting company with 372 employees, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its vice president of operations 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. § l 153(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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United 
States in a managerial capacity. In the discussion of the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed positions, 
the Director questioned whether the Beneficiary has and would continue to delegate operational tasks 
"to other company employees (such as affiliates, subordinates, or contracted staff)" stating that"[ o ]nly 
the management of employees may be considered as a qualifying duty." (Emphasis added in original). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not consider previously submitted evidence 
showing that the Beneficiary's U.S. position would involve managing managerial employees. The 
Petitioner points to job descriptions of the Beneficiary's subordinates and organizational charts 
illustrating the company's reporting structures to support the claim that the Beneficiary is a senior­
level manager whose position meets the statutory requirements of managerial capacity. With regard 
to the Beneficiary's foreign employment, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not consider the 
entire three-year period of employment that preceded the filing of this petition and points out that the 
Beneficiary held two successive managerial positions during the January 2012/January 2015 three­
year time period. In addition, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not consider its original claim 
that the Beneficiary assumed the role of a function manager, rather than a personnel manager, during 
his latest positon with the foreign entity. It states that the Beneficiary managed the integration 
function, which involved integrating the foreign operation with the business functions of two newly 
acquired entities. The Petitioner asserts that this function "was critical to the long-lasting success of 
the acquisitions" and further points to the Beneficiary's senior role within the company hierarchy 
where he reported directly to the president of the foreign employer. 
Matter ofS-C-C-
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 
also find that the Petitioner has supplemented the record with sufficient evidence that establishes that 
the Beneficiary was and would be more likely than not relieved from having to primarily devote his 
time to performing non-managerial job duties. 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 of S-C-C-, ID# 2751832 (AAO Apr. 4, 2019) 
2