sustained EB-1C Case: Automotive Industry

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
I--.. 
f .*2 \t 
OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: blEB 0 5 
PETITION: 
 Imgrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Imrmgration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Oflice 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. 
Adrmnistrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The approval of the preference visa petition was revoked by the Director, California Service 
Center. The matter is now before the Adrmnistrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
sustained. 
The petitioner is a California corporation engaged in the business of distributing auto parts in the automotive 
industry. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to 
classi@ the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the 
Lmrmgration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
In a decision dated April 13, 2006, the director revoked the approval of the petition based on the 
determination that the petitioner failed to provide adequate documentation to support its claimed indirect 
parentlsubsidiary relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. The director cited what he perceived 
to be factual inconsistencies and concluded that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient documentation to 
resolve those inconsistencies. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's conclusions and submits a brief addressing each of the points of 
contention cited in the notice of revocation. Counsel also provided corroborating documentation in support 
of the explanations, thereby resolving the director's perceived inconsistencies. 
On review, based on the evidence of record and the additional evidence submitted on appeal, the AAO finds 
that the petitioner has overcome the sole ground of the director's denial. The AAO sees no other grounds for 
denying the petition. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. The petitioner in the instant case has sustained that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.