sustained EB-1C Case: Business Management

identifying deleted to 
preven: clzarl y fln~dmznted 
invasion of personal pfivac~ 
U.S. Department of Ifomeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Imm~gration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
L/ 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: AU Q 6 2009 
LIN 08 11 1 51421 
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. fj 1153(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. 
s*M 
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director will be withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 Delaware corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its chairman. 
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. 
4 11 53(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition based on three independent grounds of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; 
2) the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and 3) the petitioner failed to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the 
beneficiary's foreign employer. In his discussion of the factors leading up to the overall adverse 
conclusion, the director noted that the record lacked evidence that the beneficiary's subordinate 
employees both abroad and in the United States werelare professional and further commented on the 
fact that the beneficiary has and wouId have only one employee directly reporting to him. 
Upon review of the record in its entirety, the AAO finds counsel's arguments and submissions on 
appeal have adequately addressed and resolved the director's concerns regarding all three grounds 
for denial. The petitioner has provided sufficient documentation to establish the levels of 
complexity of both the foreign and U.S. entities' respective organizational hierarchies and the 
beneficiary's elevated position and job duties within the scheme of both organizations. The 
petitioner has also provided supplemental documentation clearly showing common ownership and 
control of the beneficiary's foreign and U.S. employers. See Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 
I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 1982). 
In summary, the information provided is sufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence 
standard with regard to the beneficiary's employment capacity, both abroad and in the United States, 
and with regard to the qualifying relationship between the beneficiary's foreign and U.S. employers. 
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. 4 1361. The petitioner in the instant case has 
sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.