sustained EB-1C Case: Business

ichti fy ing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of personal privacy 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Tv ~LIC cop* 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 1 53(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. 
JO~. Grissom 
Acting Chief Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
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 decision of the 
director will be withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner is a California corporation 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. 
5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on 
two independent grounds of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ 
the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity; 2) the petitioner failed to establish that it has 
an employer/employee relationship with the beneficiary; and 3) the beneficiary's salary is not 
commensurate with that of an individual to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity as 
president of the petitioning entity. ' 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's conclusions and submits a brief addressing each of the 
director's findings. After reviewing the record in its entirety, the AAO finds that there was no basis 
for the director's determination regarding the petitioner's employer/employee relationship with the 
beneficiary. Similarly, the director's implication that the beneficiary's proffered wage must 
somehow comport to some unspecified standard for managers and executives is erroneous. The 
petitioner is under no statutory or regulatory obligation to ensure that the beneficiary's proffered 
wage be commensurate with a given position title. Lastly, the AAO finds that the petitioner has 
provided adequate documentation addressing the two remaining grounds-the beneficiary's 
employment capacity in the United States and the petitioner doing business. 
The record contains sufficient evidence of an organizational hierarchy that is capable of relieving the 
beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-qualifying operational tasks. The record includes 
several organizational charts and quarterly wage reports, all of which have been considered in light 
of the description of the beneficiary's job duties. A comprehensive analysis of these relevant factors 
strongly indicates that the U.S. entity is adequately staffed with individuals who are assigned to 
perform the daily non-qualifying tasks. The AAO further notes that the petitioner fully addressed 
the director's adverse comments regarding the beneficiary's management of non-professional 
subordinates by submitting evidence of each employee's educational credentials. 
Despite any shortfalls in the beneficiary's job description, the information provided is sufficient to 
meet the preponderance of the evidence standard that the beneficiary will more likely than not be 
employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. See section 
10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
1 
Although the director implied that there may be one or more grounds for denial on the basis of the petitioner's failure to 
establish 1) that it is doing business in the United States and 2) that the foreign entity would fill the beneficiary's position 
abroad in light of the beneficiary's indefinite absence, the director decided not to pursue either as a basis for denial. 
Additionally, regarding the latter issue, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement that the petitioner provide 
evidence or information establishing how the foreign entity plans to make up for the beneficiary's absence. 
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 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.