remanded EB-1C Case: Operations

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: _ Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: fEB 1 0 2.011 
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. § 11S3(b)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 
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 was organized in the State of Delaware and is seeking to hire the beneficiary in the position of 
border operations director. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an 
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(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, counsel submits a brief as 
well as additional evidence that overcomes the single ground that served as the basis for denial. As such, the 
AAO hereby withdraws the adverse decision. 
Notwithstanding the favorable finding with regard to the sole basis for denial, the AAO finds that the record 
lacks sufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner is eligible for the immigration benefit sought on the 
basis of additional grounds that were not addressed in the director's decision. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is described 
in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of the 
alien's application for classification and admission into the United States 
under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or 
corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who 
seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the 
same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is 
managerial or executive. 
Additionally the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i) states that a petition for a multinational executive or 
manager must be accompanied by a statement from an authorized official of the petitioning United States 
employer which demonstrates that: 
(A) If the alien is outside the United States, in the three years immediately preceding the 
filing of the petition the alien has been employed outside the United States for at least one 
year in a managerial or executive capacity by a firm or corporation, or other legal entity, or 
by an affiliate or subsidiary of such a firm or corporation or other legal entity; or 
(B) If the alien is already in the United States working for the same employer or a subsidiary 
or affiliate of the firm or corporation, or other legal entity by which the alien was employed 
overseas, in the three years preceding entry as a nonimmigrant, the alien was employed by the 
entity abroad for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity; 
Page 3 
(C) The prospective employer in the United States is the same employer or a subsidiary or 
affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by which the alien was employed 
overseas; and 
(D) The prospective United States employer has been doing business for at least one year. 
In the present matter, the petitioner has failed to establish that the requirements described at 8 C.F .R. 
§§204.5(j)(3)(i)(B) and (D) have been met. The petitioner also failed to establish that the beneficiary's 
proposed employment would primarily consist of tasks within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The record shows that on May 28, 2009 the director issued a request for additional evidence in which the 
petitioner was expressly instructed to provide supplemental descriptions of the beneficiary's employment with 
the foreign entity as well as the beneficiary's proposed employment with the petitioning entity. The 
petitioner's response, which included two letters dated June 26, 2009-one from the petitioning entity and the 
other from the foreign entity-indicates that a considerable portion of the beneficiary's time in both positions 
has been allocated to non-qualifying operational tasks. Without further information about the beneficiary's 
placement within each entity's organizational hierarchy and a comprehensive statement explaining how the 
beneficiary has been and would be relieved from having to perform non-qualifying tasks, it is the AAO's 
finding that the petitioner has not established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
Accordingly, the director is instructed to issue another request for evidence in an effort to address the AAO's 
findings. The director may also request any other additional evidence that he may deem necessary in order to 
establish the petitioner's eligibility to classify the beneficiary as multinational manager or executive. 
ORDER: The decision of the director dated August 12, 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 to the petitioner, shall be certified to 
the AAO for review.