sustained EB-1C Case: Construction And Design

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~ted 
. ...."'~ of ~al prtvac}' mv.....- yw'----
P1JBLIC COpy 
DATE: APR 1 2 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
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 
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. § 1153(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, 
• 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant 
visa. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be sustained. 
The petitioner is engaged in residential construction and design services, and it seeks to employ 
the beneficiary as an executive manager/senior project manager. 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. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition on the following grounds: (1) the petitioner failed to establish 
that the beneficiary will be employed in the U.S. in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity, (2) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's employment abroad was 
within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity for one year prior to entering the United 
States, and (3) the petitioner failed to establish that it has the ability to pay the beneficiary's 
proffered wage. 
Upon review ofthe record, the AAO withdraws the director's decision and sustains the appea1. The 
Form 1-129 indicates that the beneficiary will be employed in the position of senior project 
manager. The petitioner provided a detailed job description of the job duties performed by the 
beneficiary, a list of individuals supervised by the beneficiary and their job duties, and 
documentation regarding the business operations of the petitioner. The beneficiary has been and 
will be a manager and will not be obliged to spend the majority of his time performing non­
qualifying duties. 
In addition, the petitioner provided sufficient evidence that the petitioner was employed with the 
foreign company for one entire year in the 3 years preceding the time of the alien's application for 
classification and admission into the United States. The beneficiary held a managerial position 
with the foreign company from April 2007 until April 2008. 
Finally, the petitioner provided financial documents of the foreign company and the petitioner to 
indicate that the petitioner has sufficient assets to pay the wages offered to the beneficiary. 
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, that burden has been 
met. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.