sustained EB-1C Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privooy 
PlffiUCCOPY 
DATE: JUL 27 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration 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 
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. § lI53(b)(J)(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. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gm: 
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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 multinational corporation doing business in the United States. The petitioner endeavors to 
classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § llS3(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. In denying the petition, the director found that the record did not establish that the beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States within a qualifYing managerial or executive capacity. Additionally, 
the director relied on the common law definition of the term "employee" in concluding that the petitioner and 
the beneficiary do not have an employer-employee relationship. 
On appeal, counsel submits an appellate brief in which he addresses and submits documentation in response 
to the director's adverse findings. Counsel specifically discusses individual employees within the petitioner's 
organization, establishing the beneficiary's role at the top of the organizational hierarchy and explaining how 
the staffing structure that the petitioner had in place at the time of filing was sufficient to relieve the 
beneficiary from having to spend his time primarily performing non-qualifying tasks. 
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. 
After thoroughly reviewing the record and the newly submitted evidence, the AAO finds that the petitioner 
has successfully overcome the director's adverse findings and the denial must therefore be withdrawn. 
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.