sustained EB-1C Case: Travel Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-N-A-, INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 18, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of technology solution services in the travel industry, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its car distribution solutions manager 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 )(1 )(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, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary's employment abroad and his proposed employment with 
the U.S. entity qualify as pos_itions that are in a managerial capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that its prior submissions in response to the request for 
evidence did not properly address the noted deficiencies; it therefore now offers new information 
about the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed positions 'to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has and 
would continue to assume the role of a function manger. 1 Namely, the Petitioner provides a 
comprehensive job description, which lists the Beneficiary's respective job duties in his foreign and 
proposed positions and explains how the Beneficiary functioned and would function at a senior level 
with respect to the essential function he managed abroad and would manage in the United States. 
The job description also identifies the teams of employees who were and would be responsible for 
carrying out the underlying job duties associated with the Beneficiary's essential functions and 
quantifies the time that the Beneficiary actually spent and would spend on non-managerial tasks that 
pe·rtain to the essential functions. In addition, the Petitioner provides evidence to show that both it 
and the Beneficiary's foreign employer are part of a large organization that has multiple working 
teams and a robust and developed organizational hierarchy which adequately supported and would 
support the Beneficiary in his respective positions. 
1 The tenn "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a 
subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See 
section I0l(a){44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Matter of A-N-A-. Inc. 
In sum, the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary has and 
would continue to focus primarily on tasks that are directly associated with managing an essential 
function rather than performing the underlying non-managerial duties of that function. 
Upon de novo review, we find that the Petitioner has overcome the Director's decision. Therefore, 
we will sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofA-N-A-, Inc., ID# 1668600 (AAO Oct. 18, 2018) 
2