sustained EB-1C Case: Computer Services

identifYing data deleted to 
prevent cle<1i·;Y Jrlwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC copy 
DATE: JUL 22 2011 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrarive 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 USC. § IIS3(b)(1 )(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. 
t 'c .... 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 operating in the United States as a computer system services 
provider. Accordingly, 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. 
§ I IS3(b) (1)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. In denying the petition, the director issued the 
following adverse findings: I) the petitioner failed to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the 
beneficiary's foreign employer; and 2) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel submits an appellate brief along with supplemental documentation addressing each of the 
grounds that served as an alternate basis for denial. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(I) 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 I 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. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(I )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
statement which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. 
The first issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's 
foreign employer. To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, the petitioner 
must show that the beneficiary's foreign and proposed U.S. employers are the same employer (i.e. a U.S. 
entity with a foreign office) or that the two entities are related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." 
Page 3 
See generally § 203(b)(1 )(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(1)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(2) (providing 
definitions of the terms "affiliate" and "subsidiary"). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(2) states in pertinent part: 
Affiliate means: 
(A) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or 
individual; 
(B) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, each 
individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each 
entity; 
* * * 
Multinational means that the qualifying entity, or its affiliate, or subsidiary, conducts 
business in two or more countries, one of which is the United States. 
Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, directly or 
indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 
half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, SO percent of a 50-SO 
joint venture and has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
In support of the Form 1-140 the petitioner provided documents establishing the ownership of the U.S. and 
foreign entities. With regard to the foreign entity, the petitioner provided a foreign stock registry document 
and its certified English language translation identifying three individuals who were shown as equal owners 
of 500,000 shares of the foreign entity, which is equivalent to a one third share per shareholder. The record 
also contains a shareholders agreement, executed on July 19, 2007, in which the same three individuals that 
were named as owners of the foreign entity agree to vote their shares in concert, with respect to both the U.S. 
and foreign entities, so that the combined 100% ownership of the foreign entity and a combined ownership of 
86% of the U.S. entity establish that the two entities are similarly owned and controlled. 
As the AAO finds that the level of common ownership and control meets the regulatory definition of affiliate, 
the director's adverse finding is hereby withdrawn. 
Next, the AAO will address the director's adverse finding with regard to the beneficiary's employment abroad. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101 (a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 101 (a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). Personnel 
managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly 
states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of 
the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Section 
IOI(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. If a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also 
have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel 
actions. Section 101 (a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
Additionally, the statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the organization, and 
that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.s.c. 
§ I 101 (a)(44)(8). Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and 
"establish the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a 
subordinate level of employees for the beneficiary to direct and the beneficiary must primarily focus on the 
broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-operations of the enterprise. An individual 
will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive title or because they 
"direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial employee. The beneficiary must also exercise "wide 
latitude in discretionary decision making" and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization." Id. 
In the denial, the director determined that, while the petitioner provided sufficient information about the 
beneficiary's subordinates, their duties, the beneficiary's duties, and the beneficiary's own placement within 
the U.S. company's hierarchy, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient information to adequately describe the 
beneficiary's employment abroad. 
After reviewing the record in its entirety, the AAO has reached a different conclusion. While the director was 
correct in placing great emphasis on the description of the beneficiary employment with the foreign entity, 
further analysis of other elements is required. The AAO finds that the job description should be assessed in 
light of the foreign entity's organizational structure, which in the present matter has been illustrated using a 
number of charts that depict the various divisions within the foreign entity, thus showing a complex hierarchy 
with a number of managerial tiers. The director must also consider the beneficiary's position with respect to 
others within the department he manages. In the present matter, information discussing the job duties and 
educational requirements of the beneficiary's subordinates abroad indicates that the beneficiary was 
positioned to oversee the work of a professional staff. Consideration of these factors strongly indicates that 
the foreign entity was widely staffed with individuals who are able to perform the daily non-qualifying tasks 
such that the beneficiary would be relieved from having to do so. Cf Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 
(9th Cir. 2006) 
Accordingly, the AAO finds that the petitioner provided sufficient documentation to meet the preponderance 
of the evidence standard, thereby establishing that a qualifying relationship exists between the petitioning 
U.S. employer and the beneficiary's employer abroad and that the beneficiary was more likely than not 
employed abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. See section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
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.