sustained EB-1C Case: Technology Solutions

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-M-INC . 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 11, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a global provider of technologies solutions , supply chain services, and cloud services, 
seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its "Director, Cloud Enterprise Software Architecture 
and Design" under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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: (1) the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and would be employed in the 
United States, in a managerial or executive capacity; (2) the Petitioner and the Beneficiary 's foreign 
employer are both doing business; (3) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer; and (4) the Petitioner has the ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered 
wage. The Petitioner subsequently filed an appeal, which we summarily dismissed . 1 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. Upon review, 
we will grant the motion to reopen and sustain the appeal. 2 
The Director denied the petition , in part, based on evidentiary deficiencies. Specifically , the Director 
found that the Petitioner did not provide certified English translations for certain corporate and 
financial documents which were relevant to establishing the Petitioner's qualifying relationship with 
the Beneficiary's foreign employer and the foreign employer's ongoing business activities . The record 
now contains sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's foreign employer is the Petitioner's 
majority-owned subsidiary and that it continues to do business in Russia. 
Further, we disagree with the Director that the Petitioner did not establish that it is doing business as 
defined in the regulations and that it has the ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage. The 
Petitioner , a publicly traded corporation with over 7,000 U.S. employees , submitted credible evidence 
1 The Petitioner's appellate brief and supplemental evidence were not part of the record of proceedings at the time we 
adjudicated the appeal. 
2 As we are granting the Petitioner 's motion to reopen, the motion to reconsider is moot and will not be addressed. 
Matter of 1-M-, Inc. 
of its ongoing business operations and a statement from a senior financial officer that satisfies the 
ability to pay requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). 
Finally, we conclude that the record is now sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and would be employed in the United States, in a 
managerial capacity as defined at section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The Petitioner submitted a detailed description of the Beneficiary's former and proposed duties 
indicating that he has been and will be primarily engaged in qualifying managerial tasks associated 
with the company's! lwith responsibility for the 
platform's technical strategy and policies, engineering processes, and professional personnel who 
work under his direction. The Petitioner provided sufficient documentation demonstrating that the 
Beneficiary makes high level decisions that impact the ongoing development of the platform, which 
the Petitioner describes as the "backbone" of its Cloud Services offerings. Further, the record 
demonstrates that he has delegated and will delegate most non-qualifying operational tasks to 
subordinate managers and professional engineers. Although many of these subordinates are located 
in Russia, we disagree with the Director's determination that the foreign-based staff are not relevant 
to an analysis of the Beneficiary's managerial role in the United States. The Petitioner has submitted 
credible documentation to corroborate the Beneficiary's current and former managerial roles, 
including evidence of his delegation of tasks in the United States and abroad, evidence of his 
discretionary authority with respect to the product platform he manages, and evidence of his authority 
to make and approve hiring and other personnel decisions. 
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 motion to reopen is granted and the appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of 1-M-, Inc., ID# 5649703 (AAO Sept. 11, 2019) 
2