sustained EB-1C Case: Semiconductors

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 29, 2023 In Re: 28819250 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a seller of semiconductor components, systems, and equipment, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as a patent agent in the United States under the first preference immigrant 
classification for multinational executives or managers. 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 an executive or 
managerial capacity. 1 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding the record did not establish, 
as required, that the Beneficiary had been employed in a managerial or executive capacity in his former 
position abroad. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the 
Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The matter 
is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
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 ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director was mistaken in analyzing whether the Beneficiary 
qualified as a function manager abroad and indicates that it claimed he qualified as a personnel 
manager overseeing professional subordinates. 2 In addition, the Petitioner asserts that it submitted 
1 An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the petition, bas been 
employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity, and seeks to enter the United 
States in order to continue to render managerial or executive services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. 
See section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(i). 
2 The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both personnel managers and function managers. See section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. If a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary 
must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). Function managers are primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within an 
organization . See section 10 l(a)( 44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 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 "(l) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the 
sufficient documentary evidence to establish that the Beneficiary has been, and would be, employed 
as a function manager in the United States. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. We conclude that the Petitioner has established by 
a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary was employed as a personnel manager abroad as 
the foreign employer's "Patent Strategy Manager- Asia." The Petitioner submitted a detailed and 
credible duty description for the Beneficiary reflecting that, more likely than not, he was primarily 
engaged in qualifying managerial tasks overseeing its Asia patent team. Further, the evidence reflects 
that the Beneficiary more likely than not had the ability to recommend personnel actions with respect 
to thirteen patent leads, a patent engineer, and a patent administrative employee within his Asia patent 
team, all who were required to have bachelor's degrees to perform the duties of their positions. As 
such, the evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel manager in his former 
position abroad. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
We forth er conclude that the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that it will 
employ the Beneficiary in the United States as a function manager. The Petitioner submitted 
supporting documentation to substantiate that the Beneficiary has acted, and would continue to act, as 
its most senior employee within its patent prosecution and patent committee, which is a clearly defined 
and essential function of the Petitioner. The Petitioner also provided supporting evidence to 
demonstrate that he has exercised, and will continue to exercise, discretionary authority over the day­
to-day functions of the patent prosecution and patent committee. For instance, the Petitioner provided 
evidence reflecting the Beneficiary delegating tasks to those within his function and coordinating 
others in processing patents, including outside patent counsel. Therefore, the evidence demonstrates 
that the Beneficiary would primarily manage, as opposed to perform, an essential function in the 
United States. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act; Matter ofG-Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 
(AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
The Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary served as a 
personnel manager abroad and that he will serve as a function manager in the United States. 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
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). 
2