remanded EB-1C Case: Management

identifying data Jfidfd, 
prevent clearly unWarrdl1lt:c! 
invasion of personal privacy 
~UCCOP\ 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
C. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: 
SEP 1 4 2010 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscls.gov 
, 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The matter will be remanded for further 
consideration. 
The petitioner claims to be a U.S. corporate entity that seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of 
director. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant 
pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(I)(C), 
as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought and 
denied the petition. Specifically, the director determined that because the beneficiary is currently in the 
United States in the H-I B rather than the L-I nonimmigrant visa category, he does not qualify for 
classification as a multinational manager or executive. 
While an independent review of the record indicates that a denial may be warranted in the present matter, the 
director's analysis is deficient in that it fails to articulate an identifiable basis for denial. As a threshold issue, 
the AAO notes that the beneficiary'S classification in the H-l B nonimmigrant visa category does not preclude 
eligibility in the present matter. While the beneficiary'S nonimmigrant classification at the time the petition 
was filed may be an indicator as to the nature of the job duties the beneficiary would perform for the U.S. 
entity, the director must first determine that the beneficiary performs primarily non-qualifying tasks before 
concluding that he does not qualify for classification as a multinational manager or executive. See Section 
203(b)(I )(C) of the Act. The director is also encouraged to focus on the eligibility requirements listed at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5U)(3)(i), which address pivotal issues, including the beneficiary'S time period of employment 
abroad and his employment capacity with a qualifying foreign entity, the petitioner's qualifying relationship 
with that foreign entity, and the petitioner's business activity in the United States during the one-year period 
prior to the date the Form 1-140 was filed. Additionally, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) requires that the petitioner 
establish its ability to pay the beneficiary'S proffered wage as ofthe priority date. 
It appears that the director made an initial finding that the petitioner is not affiliated with a foreign entity that 
employed the beneficiary abroad prior to his employment with the U.S. entity. While the AAO finds that the 
director's observation was relevant and accurate, the director did not issue his adverse finding based on this 
observation. 
Therefore, the AAO concludes that the denial is deficient as it is not based on any of the eligibility factors in 
the relevant statute and regulations. The director may either issue a notice requesting evidence of the 
petitioner's eligibility for the immigration benefit sought, or he may choose to deny the petition on the basis of 
the evidence that is currently in the record of proceeding. 
ORDER: The decision of the director dated April 27, 2009 is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded for further action and consideration consistent with the above discussion 
and entry of a new decision, which, if adverse, shall be certified to the AAO for 
review.