sustained EB-1C Case: Technology And Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-1- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 20, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a diversified technology and manufacturing company, seeks to permanently employ 
the Beneficiary as "HSF Americas AME Director" 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. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. In addition, the Director determined that the Beneficiary had not been employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity abroad prior to his entry into the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager in the United 
States based on his supervision of subordinate managers and professionals. The Petitioner also 
contends that the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel manager in his former position abroad. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the record is sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary would 
more likely than not act in a managerial capacity in the United States. First, the Petitioner has 
submitted a detailed duty description for the Beneficiary indicating that he will be primarily engaged 
in qualifying managerial tasks overseeing a department tasked with new product introductions valued 
at approximately $1.5 billion. In addition, the evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary's 
department will include several supervisors and professional engineers. The submitted evidence also 
sufficiently establishes that the Beneficiary has the authority to hire, fire, and take other personnel 
actions with respect to the members of his department and indicates that he exercises discretion over 
the day-to-day operations of his departments. Further, the submitted evidence demonstrates that the 
members of the Beneficiary's department will more likely than not relieve him from primarily 
performing non-qualifying operational level tasks. As such, the evidence demonstrates that the 
Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2). 
For similar reasons, the Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary was more likely than not 
employed as a personnel manager abroad prior to his entry into the United States in 2012. Again, the 
Matter of H-I- Inc. 
Petitioner submitted a detailed foreign duty description for the Beneficiary indicating that he was 
primarily engaged in qualifying managerial tasks as a business unit manager overseeing a department 
of approximately 900 employees in the company's air heating manufacturing division. The supporting 
evidence substantiates that the Beneficiary more likely than not supervised subordinate associate 
supervisors overseeing the Petitioner's manufacturing operations in Mexico. Therefore, the evidence 
establishes that the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel manager abroad. 
The totality of the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary will more likely than not be employed in 
a managerial capacity in the United States and that he was employed in a managerial capacity abroad. 
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. The Petitioner has met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofH-I-Inc, ID# 3711002 (AAO June 20, 2019) 
2