Date of Decision: JUN. 08, 2021
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Business Information Technology Consulting
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Project Manager
Field: Personnel Management
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Remanded
Case Overview
The Petitioner, a business information technology consulting firm, filed a petition to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a project manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Beneficiary was previously employed abroad as a personnel manager, overseeing a team of subordinate professionals. The specific immigration benefit sought was to classify the Beneficiary as a multinational manager under the first preference immigrant visa category.
Key Issues
The primary issue in this case was whether the Beneficiary’s prior employment abroad qualified as managerial or executive capacity. The Director of the Texas Service Center initially denied the petition, arguing that the Beneficiary’s duties did not demonstrate sufficient managerial responsibilities. The Director also questioned whether the Beneficiary managed an essential function within the organization, despite the Petitioner’s assertion that the Beneficiary was a personnel manager.
USCIS Findings
Upon appeal, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) noted that the Director failed to provide a specific analysis of the Beneficiary’s foreign duties or how they did not meet the criteria for managerial capacity. The AAO also recognized that the Petitioner provided new evidence on appeal, which was crucial for determining the Beneficiary’s eligibility. As the review of this new evidence falls outside the scope of the AAO’s de novo review, the case was remanded to the Director for further consideration.
Supporting Evidence
The Petitioner submitted additional documentation on appeal, including evidence meant to demonstrate that the Beneficiary’s role abroad as a personnel manager involved supervising professional subordinates. This evidence was considered material to the case, warranting a new decision by the Director.
Additional Notes
The AAO highlighted the importance of a thorough analysis by the Director regarding the Beneficiary’s role and responsibilities in the foreign organization. The case emphasizes the need for clear and specific reasoning in determining whether a position meets the statutory requirements for managerial capacity.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The initial decision was withdrawn, and the matter was remanded for the entry of a new decision based on the additional evidence and proper analysis.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
