EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives) USCIS Appeal Review – Senior Director of Solutions Engineering – NOV222024_01B4203

Date of Decision: November 22, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Programmatic Advertising

Beneficiary Information

Profession: Senior Director of Solutions Engineering
Field: Programmatic Advertising
Nationality: Not Specified

Summary of Decision

Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

Case Overview

The petitioner, a company specializing in programmatic advertising, sought to employ the beneficiary as a senior director of solutions engineering under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.

The Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. On appeal, the petitioner argued that the director improperly disregarded key evidence. However, after de novo review, the Administrative Appeals Office determined that the director’s decision was supported by the record and dismissed the appeal.

Key Issues

The primary issue was whether the petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial capacity for at least one year within the three years preceding the petition’s filing.

The director found that the beneficiary’s role as a senior data scientist at the foreign affiliate from 2016 to 2018 was not primarily managerial. The job description and supporting evidence indicated that the beneficiary was engaged in technical work rather than high-level decision-making. While the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary’s role was a blend of managerial and technical responsibilities, the director determined that the record did not demonstrate that the managerial duties were primary.

The petitioner provided a breakdown of the beneficiary’s responsibilities, indicating that 55% of his time was spent managing and building data products and 45% was allocated to data science and analytics consultancy. However, the director found that the description did not sufficiently explain how much of the beneficiary’s time was dedicated to managing people versus performing operational tasks.

The director also noted that the petitioner’s organizational chart showed that the beneficiary was one of six data scientists, only one of whom had a subordinate. The record did not clarify why the beneficiary’s role was different from the other data scientists or demonstrate that he was in a managerial position within the organization.

The petitioner provided additional evidence in response to a request for evidence (RFE), describing the beneficiary’s involvement in client training sessions, business reviews, and technical leadership. However, the director found that these activities were insufficient to establish that the beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial functions rather than technical tasks.

On appeal, the petitioner reiterated that the beneficiary’s duties included both managerial and technical responsibilities. The petitioner argued that managing data science initiatives qualified as a managerial function. However, the Administrative Appeals Office determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was primarily engaged in managing people or an essential function at a senior level.

USCIS Findings

The Administrative Appeals Office upheld the director’s decision, citing the following findings:

  • The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary’s role was primarily managerial rather than technical.
  • The beneficiary was one of six data scientists, none of whom were clearly designated as managers, and there was no evidence that the beneficiary had distinct authority over the team.
  • The record contained conflicting descriptions of the beneficiary’s responsibilities, with some documents emphasizing technical tasks rather than managerial oversight.
  • The director correctly determined that the beneficiary did not meet the statutory definition of a manager, as defined under section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Supporting Evidence

  • Job descriptions outlining the beneficiary’s responsibilities at the foreign affiliate
  • Organizational charts showing the structure of the data science team
  • Project documentation and performance reviews
  • Emails and correspondence related to the beneficiary’s work in data science and analytics
  • Training session materials and business review presentations

Additional Notes

The Administrative Appeals Office emphasized that a beneficiary’s title alone does not establish managerial capacity. The petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial functions rather than technical or operational tasks.

Additionally, the decision reaffirmed that a manager must either oversee professional employees or manage an essential function at a senior level. The petitioner’s evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary met either requirement.

Conclusion

Final Determination: Appeal dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a primarily managerial capacity. The evidence indicated that the beneficiary’s duties were largely technical rather than managerial, and the organizational structure did not support the claim that the role was at a managerial level.

Download the Full Petition Review Here

Emmanuel Uwakwe
Emmanuel Uwakwe

I studied Electrical and Electronics Engineering and have a huge passion for tech related stuff :)

Articles: 1543

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *