remanded EB-1C Case: Operations Management

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac} 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: 
DEC 1 3 2010 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF -REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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 is a limited liability company organized in the State of Texas. It seeks to hire the beneficiary in 
the position of general operations manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary 
as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1 )(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director determined that 
the petitioner failed to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer 
and denied the petition on that basis. 
On appeal, the petitioner disputes the director's finding and submits additional supporting evidence. After a 
thorough review of the record, the AAO finds that the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish 
that it and the beneficiary's foreign employer are commonly owned and controlled such that there is a 
qualifying relationship between them. Therefore, the director's decision is hereby withdrawn. 
Notwithstanding the petitioner's ability to overcome the director's basis for denial, the AAO finds that the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to determine that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements cited at 8 
C.F.R. §§ 204.5G)(3)(B) and (5), which require evidence establishing that the beneficiary was primarily 
employed abroad and that he would be primarily employed by the petitioning U.S. entity in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, respectively. In order to meet the eligibility criteria, the petitioner should 
provide organizational charts of both entities showing the petitioner's organizational hierarchy at the time the 
Form 1-140 was filed and the foreign entity's organizational hierarchy at the time of the beneficiary'S 
employment abroad. The petitioner should also be instructed to provide detailed job descriptions delineating 
the specific tasks and the time allocated to those tasks in the context of the beneficiary'S employment abroad 
and in his proposed position with the U.S. entity. 
Accordingly, the director is instructed to issue further notice to the petitioner requesting the above 
information in an effort to establish whether the beneficiary was employed abroad and whether he would be 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The director may also request any other 
additional evidence that he may deem necessary in order to establish the petitioner's eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought herein. 
ORDER: The decision of the director dated June 18, 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.