sustained EB-1C Case: Carpet And Rug Import

• ... 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent cleady unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC·COP\' 
DATE: MAR 09 2012 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
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 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § l1S3(b)(1)(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, 
trry Rhew 
((Fief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 doing business as an importer of carpets and rugs. At the time of 
the petition's filing in 20 I 0, the petitioner reported U.S. gross revenues of $1 million and 150 employees 
worldwide. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its vice president. The petitioner endeavors to classify the 
beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director determined that the documentation submitted was not sufficient to establish that the petitioner 
would employ the beneficiary in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity and 
therefore denied the petition in a decision dated January 12,2011. The petitioner filed a timely appeal. 
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. 
In support of the Form 1-140 the petitioner submitted a statement dated July 14, 2010, which addressed the 
beneficiary's role regarding the petitioner's personnel, finance, operations, and marketing. The petitioner also 
provided a number of supporting documents addressing the regulatory filing requirements described at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i). 
The director issued a request for evidence (RPE) dated September 20, 2010, instructing the petitioner to 
submit, in part, documentation addressing the beneficiary's proposed position with the U.S. entity as well as 
the petitioner's organizational hierarchy. 
Page 3 
The petitioner provided a response, which included a statement dated November 23, 2010. The statement 
included a percentage breakdown of the beneficiary's proposed duties with the U.S. entity. The petitioner 
also submitted the U.S. company's organizational chart as well as payroll and tax documents to corroborate 
that payments of wages to the employees named on the chart. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief dated February 11, 2011 in which he disputes the basis for denial. Counsel 
asserts that the beneficiary'S proposed employment falls within the statutory definition of executive capacity 
pursuant to section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Counsel focuses on the beneficiary's senior placement within 
the petitioner's organizational hierarchy and her authority to direct the management of a major component of 
the business, establish its goals and policies, and exercise wide discretion in managing the company. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are persuasive. The AAO finds sufficient evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary will be performing duties that are primarily executive in nature. Contrary to the director's 
observations, the petitioner has provided a description of the beneficiary's duties at the U.S. company 
sufficient to establish that her duties will be primarily related to the management of the petitioner's business, 
and not to produce a product, provide a service, or perform other non-managerial functions. Further, the 
evidence demonstrates that the beneficiary does not directly perform the routine sales and marketing functions 
carried out by the office. The AAO is satisfied that the beneficiary directs the management of the business, 
exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the business, establishes goals and policies for the 
business, and receives only general supervision from the board of directors. The evidence submitted 
establishes that the beneficiary will also supervise and control the work of subordinate supervisory employees 
and exercises authority to hire and fire employees under her supervision. See sections 101(a)( 44)(A) and (B) 
of the Act. 
Furthermore, the AAO notes that section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act does not require that the beneficiary 
supervise only professionals; the beneficiary may supervise other supervisory or managerial employees as is 
the case here. The record indicates that the beneficiary's subordinate manager will manage the day-to-day 
functions of the business as well as low-level personnel while the beneficiary attends to more executive duties 
like budgeting, strategic planning, and negotiating alliances for new business. The AAO is also satisfied that 
the beneficiary exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the business, as required by section 
101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. 
While the beneficiary will undoubtedly be required to apply her expertise to perform some higher-level sales 
while negotiating new business, marketing and administrative tasks, the AAO is persuaded that the majority 
of the day-to-day non-managerial tasks required to operate the business will be carried out by the beneficiary's 
subordinates. The petitioner need only establish that the beneficiary devotes more than half of her time to 
managerial or executive duties. The petitioner has met that burden. 
Page 4 
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, the petitioner has met that burden. Accordingly, the 
director's decision dated January 12,2011 is withdrawn and the petition is approved. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.