sustained EB-1C Case: Airline

lderldfying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUSLICCOPY 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
. TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland ~urity 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Setvices 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DaWlAR 04 2011 
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. § 1153(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 $630. 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. 
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 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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
On June 3, 2009, the director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary merits classification as a multinational manager or executive with the U.S. entity because the 
petitioner failed to establish: 1) that it has ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage; and 2) that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifYing managerial or executive capacity. 
With regard to the issue of ability to pay, the director determined that the petitioner submitted an unaudited 
financial statement and showed no net assets in 2008. However, the director shows that the financial 
statement that was submitted in response to the request for evidence was in fact audited and included an 
independent auditors report. The record also shows that the beneficiary was paid the proffered wage in 2008 
and that the petitioner in fact provided prima facie evidence to establish the petitioner's ability to pay in 2008. 
In analyzing a petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage, the fundamental focus is whether the employer is 
making a "realistic" or credible job offer and has the financial ability to satisfY the proffered wage. Malter of 
Great Wall, 16 I&N Dec. 142, 145 (Acting Reg. Comm. 1977). Here, the AAO is satisfied that the 
petitioner's job offer is valid and that petitioner would more likely than not maintain its ability to pay the 
beneficiary's proffered wage. 
With regard to the second ground for denial-that the petitioner failed to provide a description of the 
beneficiary's foreign employment-the AAO notes that the petitioner provided a letter dated December 18, 
2008 in support of the petition and that the support letter included a valid job description, which was 
accompanied by an hourly breakdown and a list of job duties. Therefore, the evidence of record indicates that 
the director's adverse finding was erroneous and must be withdrawn. The record also includes a description of 
the beneficiary's proposed employment as well as the petitioner's organizational chart, which adequately 
illustrates the beneficiary's proposed position in the petitioning entity with respect to others. The chart 
displays a complex management structure with the beneficiary overseeing numerous managerial positions 
within a department in the petitioner's large organizational hierarchy. 
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states in pertinent part: 
(I) 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 I year by a firm or 
Page 3 
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. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(1)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
statement which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. 
In the present matter, the petitioner provided sufficient documentation to meet the preponderance of the 
evidence standard thereby establishing that the beneficiary was employed abroad and would more likely than 
not be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. See section 
10 I (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. § 1361. The petitioner in the instant case has sustained that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.