sustained EB-1C Case: Business Management

ident;fying data deleted to 
prevent cleariy unw afianted 
invasion of persond pfivac) 
U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Sewices 
Offlce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. 8 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you haw: additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
%* 
John F. Gnssom Pb./ 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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 Michigan corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. 
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 1 153(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 has been doing business in the United States; and 2) the petitioner failed to 
establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. After 
reviewing the petitioner's submissions, the AAO finds that neither of the director's findings was 
warranted. The record contains considerable evidence establishing that the petitioner has been and 
continues to conduct business in the manner prescribed by regulation. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5Cj)(2) for 
a definition of doing business. Additionally, the petitioner has provided sufficient documentation to 
establish the levels of complexity of the U.S. entity's organizational hierarchy and the beneficiary's 
elevated position and duties within the scheme of this organization. 
In summary, the information provided is sufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence 
standard with regard to the petitioner's business activity in the United States as well as the 
beneficiary's employment capacity in the proffered position. 
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 
sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.