Date of Decision: January 31, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Coatings and Specialty Materials Manufacturing
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Senior Business Manager
Field: Coatings and Specialty Materials Manufacturing
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Director’s decision withdrawn
Motion Outcome: Case remanded for new decision
Case Overview
The petitioner, a global manufacturer of coatings and specialty materials, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its senior business manager under the EB-1C immigrant visa classification for multinational executives or managers.
The Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary had been employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial capacity. However, on appeal, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the director’s decision lacked clarity, improperly combined distinct roles, and failed to properly assess the documentary record. The AAO withdrew the director’s decision and remanded the case for further adjudication.
Key Issues
The first issue was the director’s failure to identify a clear basis for denial. The decision did not distinguish between the beneficiary’s foreign and proposed U.S. roles, making it impossible to discern which position was deemed nonqualifying. This lack of specificity prevented the petitioner from addressing the issues effectively on appeal.
The second issue was the director’s failure to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i), which requires officers to provide a specific explanation for denial. The AAO found that the decision contained contradictory statements and omitted sufficient analysis of the submitted evidence.
The third issue involved the misapplication of the function manager framework. While the petitioner clearly asserted that the beneficiary managed an essential function, the director focused disproportionately on the number of subordinates and failed to apply the five criteria outlined in Matter of G-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05.
The fourth issue was the inadequate evaluation of evidence. The petitioner submitted extensive documentation, including organizational charts, internal communications, job descriptions, and business narratives, yet the director’s decision did not analyze this material or explain why it was deficient.
The fifth issue was the failure to evaluate the beneficiary’s roles abroad and in the United States separately. By combining both roles into a single analysis, the director undermined the legal sufficiency of the denial and created confusion about how the statutory standard was applied.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office withdrew the director’s decision and remanded the case for further review based on the following findings:
- The denial did not distinguish whether the beneficiary’s foreign or U.S. role—or both—failed to meet the managerial capacity threshold.
- The director failed to provide a full explanation for denial, in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i).
- The function manager standard was not properly applied, as the decision did not engage the full five-prong analysis required by Matter of G-, Inc.
- Key evidence submitted by the petitioner—including job descriptions, internal emails, and organizational documentation—was not sufficiently addressed.
- The decision relied excessively on staffing levels, which is inconsistent with the evaluative guidance in Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02, especially in function manager claims.
Supporting Evidence
- Foreign and U.S. job descriptions indicating management of an essential function
- Organizational charts showing reporting structures and business hierarchy
- Internal communications and work product illustrating discretionary authority
- Business descriptions detailing the nature and strategic role of the managed function
- Appeal brief rebutting the denial and citing applicable case law and statutory criteria
Additional Notes
The Administrative Appeals Office emphasized that a beneficiary may qualify as a function manager without direct supervisory responsibility over numerous employees, provided that they manage a clearly defined, essential function and exercise significant discretionary authority. Officers must distinguish between foreign and U.S. positions and conduct a full review of all submitted evidence before reaching a decision. Denials based on vague or conflated reasoning are procedurally insufficient and undermine the fairness of the appellate process.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Director’s decision withdrawn; case remanded for new decision
Reasoning: The director failed to clarify whether the beneficiary’s foreign or U.S. employment—or both—failed to meet the managerial standard, did not analyze the submitted evidence appropriately, and did not apply the required function manager framework. A new decision is required with distinct analyses for each role and proper application of governing law.
