sustained EB-1C Case: Technology Solutions

MATTER OF N-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
.Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 16, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of technology solutions in the global news media industry, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as its digital development manager 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 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 that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence of record is sufficient to establish that the 
Beneficiary was employed by its foreign subsidiary in a managerial capacity, as defined at section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), prior to his transfer to the United States in 
2014. The Petitioner objects to the Director's decision to give little weight to a 2014 letter from the 
foreign employer, simply because the letter was two years old and had been submitted in support of 
a previously filed nonimmigrant petition. The Petitioner correctly argues that the date on the 
supporting statement is not relevant to the issue of the Beneficiary's managerial position with the 
foreign entity, so long as the Petitioner establishes that it met eligibility requirements at the time this 
petition was filed. The Petitioner also points out that the date on the letter in question is consistent 
with the time period during which the Beneficiary stopped working for the foreign entity. We agree 
that a more current letter describing the Beneficiary's former foreign employment would have no 
bearing on the issue of whether the former position met the statutory definition of managerial 
capacity. 
Lastly, the Petitioner points to previously submitted evidence, including a job duty breakdown, 
which indicates that approximately 80% of the Beneficiary's time was allocated to managerial job 
duties, as well as a flow chart of the digital development function the Beneficiary managed and a 
chart that listed the names, job titles, job duties, and educational credentials of the subordinate 
employees who performed the underlying duties of that function. Based on the totality of the 
evidence, we find that it was more likely than not that the Beneficiary was relieved from having to 
primarily carry out the non-managerial functions of the digital development department by a team of 
professional employees who were subject to the Beneficiary's oversight and control. 
Matter of N-S-, Inc. 
Upon de novo review, we find that the Petitioner has overcome the reasons for denial as stated in the 
Director's decision. Therefore, we will sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofN-S-, Inc., ID# 1574137 (AAO Aug. 16, 2018) 
2