sustained EB-1C Case: Technology And Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18236387 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 28, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for a Multinational Executive or Manager 
The Petitioner, a diversified technology and manufacturing company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as a "senior manager: sales and marketing" 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. § 1153(b)(l)(C). This employment-based "EB-1" immigrant classification 
allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to 
work in a managerial or executive capacity . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition on the ground that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the foreign entity employed the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial capacity before he 
was transferred to the United States. 
On appeal the Petitioner submits additional documentation and asserts that the evidence of record does 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity by the foreign entity before his 
transfer to the United States . 
The AAO reviews the questions in this matter de novo. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 
537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). It is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
by a preponderance of the evidence. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010) . 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa available to a beneficiary who "in the 3 years 
preceding the time of [their] application for classification and admission into the United States" has been 
employed 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. 
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. As provided 
in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i), the petition must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that: (A) the beneficiary was 
employed outside the United States by the same employer, or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof: in a 
managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition; 
or (B) if the beneficiary is already in the United States working for the U.S. employer at the time of filing, 
the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity by the same employer, or a 
subsidiary or affiliate thereof, for at least one year during the three years preceding his or her entry into 
the United States as a nonimmigrant; (C) the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the 
same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer; and (D) the prospective U.S. employer 
has been doing business for at least one year. 
The Petitioner in this case is seeking to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial, not an executive, 
capacity. As defined in section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 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. 
IT. DISCUSSION 
As related in the Petitioner's original statement and subsequent submissions during this proceeding, 
the Beneficiarv began wo~ing fof the I I organization in September 1997, when he was hired 
byl ~ l i India, for the position of Vertical Market Mana er: Terminals and 
Storage Solutions. The Beneficiary later worked for fr m 
January 2005 to July 2009, before being transferred in August 2009 to~---------~ 
As of January 2013 the Beneficiary's job title inl lwas Global Sales Leader - Terminal 
Industry Solutions. In January 2015 the Beneficiary was appointed Global Business Development 
Manager for Terminal Solutions. The Beneficiary was subsequently transferred to the United States 
with L-1 A nonimmigrant status, as an intracompany transferee, in August 2016. The instant petition 
for immigrant status was filed in January 2020. 
In denying the petition the Director stated that the Petitioner did not submit the organizational chart 
of the foreign employer inl O , I to show where the Beneficiary's position stood within the 
corporate structure. The Director also stated that a chart describing the duties and responsibilities of 
2 
the Beneficiary and his subordinates in the foreign entity was not detailed enough to establish that the 
Beneficiary managed an essential function 1 within the organization. In addition, the Director indicated 
that five employees who allegedly relieved the Beneficiary of responsibility for performing day-do­
day tasks of the business were actually managed and supervised by different managers. The Director 
concluded that the evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial 
capacity by the foreign entity itj I 
Upon review of the entire record, including the materials submitted in support of the appeal, we 
determine that the Petitioner has overcome the Director's ground for denial. The Petitioner has 
submitted multiple charts of the Beneficiary's Josition as Global Sales Leader - Terminal Industry 
Solutions with the foreign entity in I in which the Beneficiary was responsible for sales 
orders to the Middle East, Africa, China, and other Asian countries. The charts describe the 
Beneficiary's managerial duties and daily tasks, state the percentage of time spent on each, and identify 
the names, job titles, and responsibilities of the Beneficiary's subordinates (both direct reports and 
matrix reports), as well as the subordinates' educational degrees. The record also includes assorted 
corporate records, internal email communications, and letters from the Beneficiary's superiors which 
illuminate the Beneficiary's working relationships within the corporate structure of the foreign entity 
in I " 1 I show that he reported to the vice president of global sales i~ I Texas, and that 
he exercised managerial responsibilities vis-a-vis specific teams and individuals located around the 
world; and document two direct report relationships in which the Beneficiary exercised hiring and 
firing authority. Based on the entirety of the evidence submitted bf the Petitioner, we conclude that 
the Beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity inl during the years 2013-2016 met 
the four elements of managerial capacity under section I 01 (a)(44)(A) of the Act because he primarily 
(i) managed a subdivision or component of the organization (sales activities in a wide geographical 
area); (ii) supervised and controlled the work of other supervisory and/or professional employees ( even 
if not all of them were supervisory or professional); (iii) had the authority to hire and fire at least two 
employees he supervised; and (iv) exercised discretion over the day-to-day operations of the foreign 
entity's sales-related activities in a wide geographical area. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary was employed 
in a managerial capacity by the foreign entity inl I for at least one year during the three years 
preceding his entry as a nonimmigrant into the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
1 In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) the Petitioner referred to the Beneficiaiy' s position in._l __ ___. 
as managing the sales functions of its terminals business in a wide range of geographical areas. The RFE response also 
referred to the Beneficiary's position as a manager of professional employees. 
3