sustained EB-1C Case: Airline

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranteo 
invasion of personal privacj 
PUBLIC CnPr7 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OBce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: ApR 1 2 20'0 
SRC 08 800 0921 1 
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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(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. 
U 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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 decision of the director will be 
withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner is a multinational corporation operating in the United States as an international airline. 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. In denying the petition, the director found that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. 
On appeal, counsel submits an appellate brief disputing the director's findings as well as additional 
documentation regarding the beneficiary's position within the petitioning organization and the organization's 
structural make-up. 
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. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and managers who 
have previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that entity, 
and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and a "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 10 l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). Personnel 
managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly 
states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of 
the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Section 
10 1 (a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(l)(ii)(B)((2). If a beneficiary directly supervises other 
employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those 
actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
In the denial, the director found that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's subordinates in the 
United States are professional employees. However, as indicated in section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii), an individual 
that is to be employed in a managerial capacity may oversee the work of supervisory, professional, or 
managerial subordinates. Thus, the beneficiary's oversight is not merely limited to professional employees 
and may include supervisory andlor managerial employees as well. According to the evidence provided by 
the petitioner, the beneficiary does in fact oversee the work of managerial and supervisory employees. This 
point, along with other relevant factors, is adequately addressed in counsel's appellate brief. 
Therefore, while the director was correct in placing great emphasis on the descriptions of the beneficiary's 
duties with the U.S. entity, this element must be assessed in light of a comprehensive analysis of other 
relevant factors. These factors include the overall organizational structure, which in the present matter is 
complex with a number of managerial tiers, as well as the beneficiary's position with respect to others within 
the department he manages. Consideration of these factors strongly indicates that the petitioning entity is 
widely staffed with subordinate first-line supervisors and individuals who are assigned to perform the daily 
non-qualifying tasks. Cf: Family Inc. v. UITCIS, 469 F .3 d 1 3 1 3 (9th Cir. 2006) 
In the present matter, the petitioner provided sufficient documentation to meet the preponderance of the 
evidence standard thereby establishing that the beneficiary would more likely than not be employed in the 
United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner in the instant case has sustained that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.