sustained EB-1C Case: Beauty Spa

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 1 9 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigratimi Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
·Services 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
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: · 
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. 
Thank you, 
• 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center. The matter is now. before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner is a Beauty Spa that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its President. 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 denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary's proposed employment with the U.S. entity would be within a qualifying managerial 
or executive capacity. 
On appea~ counsel disputes the director's findings and provides an appellate brieflaying out the 
grounds for challenging the denial. 
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 ofthat entity, and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, 
or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States ~ployer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under 
section 203(b)(l)(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 
(b)(6)
Page3 
States in a managerial or executive capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to 
be perf<;>rmed by the alien. 
In examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, USCIS will look first to 
the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). Published case law 
clearly supports the pivotal role of a clearly defined job description, as the actual duties 
themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). 
USCIS reviews the totality of the record, which includes not only the beneficiary's job 
description, but also takes into account the nature of the petitioner's business, the employment 
and remuneration of employees, as well as the job descriptions of the beneficiary's subordinates 
and any other facts contributing to a complete understanding of a beneficiary's actual role within 
a given entity. 
. . 
Upon review of the record, the AAO withdraws the director's decision and sustains the appeal. The 
director noted in the decision that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish 
that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qlialifyirig managerial or 
executive capacity. However; the petitioner provided a detailed job description of the job duties 
performed. by the beneficiary with the petitioner, and provided detailed job desciiptions of the 
subordinates supervised by the beneficiary. · 
The petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish eligibility fur the benefit sought. The AAO 
will withdraw the director's decision and sustain the apt)eal. 
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. Here, that burden has been 
met. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained . 
ORDER: . The appeal is sustained.