Date of Decision: March 1, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Optics, Imaging, and Photonics Technology
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Product Line Manager
Field: Optics, Imaging, and Photonics Technology
Nationality: Germany
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The petitioner in this case is a global producer of optics, imaging, and photonics technology, seeking to permanently employ the beneficiary, a Product Line Manager, under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The petition was initially denied by the Nebraska Service Center on the grounds that the beneficiary’s role abroad did not meet the necessary criteria for a managerial or executive position. On appeal, the petitioner provided additional evidence, asserting that the beneficiary did, in fact, fulfill a managerial role in a foreign subsidiary based in Germany.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case centered on whether the beneficiary had been employed in a managerial capacity while working abroad. The initial decision focused heavily on whether the beneficiary was sufficiently distanced from routine operations to qualify as a personnel manager. The Director concluded that the beneficiary did not manage other managers, professionals, or supervisors, which is typically required for a managerial capacity. However, the petitioner argued that the beneficiary’s role should be classified as that of a function manager, responsible for overseeing an essential function within the organization.
USCIS Findings
Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) noted that the Director’s assessment failed to consider the beneficiary’s role as a function manager. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, a “managerial capacity” can be demonstrated by either managing personnel or managing an essential function within an organization. The AAO remanded the case for further consideration, instructing the Director to evaluate whether the beneficiary’s duties aligned with the criteria for a function manager, including managing a clearly defined and essential function at a senior level and exercising discretion over its daily operations.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted additional documentation on appeal, including detailed descriptions of the beneficiary’s duties and responsibilities as a product line manager, which they argued constituted managing an essential function within the company. The evidence provided aimed to demonstrate that the beneficiary’s role was integral to the company’s operations and met the statutory definition of managerial capacity.
Additional Notes
In addition to reevaluating the beneficiary’s eligibility as a function manager, the AAO noted that the petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence of its ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward. The Director was instructed to request the necessary financial documentation from the petitioner on remand.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The case was remanded to the Nebraska Service Center for further consideration, with instructions to reevaluate the beneficiary’s eligibility as a function manager and to address the petitioner’s ability to pay the proffered wage.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
