sustained EB-1C Case: Software

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I-I-INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 9, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of quality control software and technical support services. seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as its general manager under the first preference immigrant 
classification of a multinational executive or manager. 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 an executive or 
managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, 1 concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief addressing the issues discussed in the Director's decision. 
We issued a request for evidence (RFE) and have received a detailed response from the Petitioner. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa 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 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 aftiliate. 
A United States employer may file Form 1-140. Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a 
beneficiary under section 203(b)(l )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. The petition 
must include a statement from an authorized official of the petitioning United States employer which 
1 The Director initially denied the petition in February 2016 based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it 
had been doing business in the United States for at least one year prior to filing the petition and that it had the ability to 
pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage. The Petitioner appealed the decision. We withdrew the Director's decision and 
remanded the matter for issuance of a new decision in September 2016. We determined that. although the Petitioner 
overcame the two grounds for denial, the record at the time did not include sufficient evidence that the Petitioner would 
employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. The Director issued a new decision on October 31. 2016, 
and the Petitioner has now appealed that decision. 
Matter of 1-1- Inc. 
demonstrates that the beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at 
least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to 
work in the United States for the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer. and 
that the prospective U.S. employer has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.50)(3). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity as defined at section 1 Ol(a)(44) of the Act 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44). The Director's decision was based on a finding that the record did not 
include a detailed position description for the Beneficiary or the Petitioner's detailed organizational 
chart. The Director emphasized that he had solicited this information in an RFE in February 2015 
and the Petitioner's response to that RFE did not include this requested evidence. 
In support ofthis appeal, the Petitioner submitted a description of the Beneficiary's proposed duties, 
an employee list identifying each of the Beneficiary's direct and indirect subordinates by name, job 
title and job duties, and detailed organizational charts for the petitioning company and foreign 
company. We issued an RFE asking for additional clarification on the nature of her duties after 
noting that it appeared that the Beneficiary may be spending more time abroad than in the United 
States, despite the Petitioner's offer of permanent, U.S.-based employment. 
The Petitioner's detailed response to our RFE has overcome the Director's concerns regarding the 
Beneficiary's employment in a managerial capacity and our concerns regarding the permanent. full­
time nature of the U.S. employment. The record now establishes that the Beneficiary will primarily 
manage the business development function for the China/ Asian market with the support of U.S. and 
China-based staff who perform the operational and administrative duties related to that function. 
The Petitioner has established that she will report directly to is chief executive officer, and her role 
will include providing strategic guidance to U.S. senior managers and executives, managing 
communication between the U.S. and China operations, coordinating product design and brand 
strategy for the Asian markets, directing and administering the budget for brand development and 
licensing for the Petitioner's products in China, and ensuring the implementation of goals and 
strategies for the development of the China market. Her proposed duties are consistent with those of 
a function manager as contemplated at section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has overcome the sole ground for denial, the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of 1-1- Inc., ID# 565790 (AAO Nov. 9, 2017) 
2