sustained EB-1C Case: Cruise Line Operations

w 
i4k&q@data&I&k, 
prevent clearly unwanmted 
invasion of peRonal privacy 
mLIc COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a ~ultinaiional Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1 153(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Ap 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was approved on May 29, 2003 by the Director, California 
Service Center. The director subsequently made a number of procedural errors, which ultimately led to the 
denial of the petition on April 9,2004. The matter was certified to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
for review. On February 22,2005, the AAO remanded the matter back to the service center and instructed the 
director to issue a notice of intent to revoke (NOR) and to certify the matter back to the AAO upon entry of a 
new decision. The director subsequently issued an MOIR dated July 6,2005. Upon reviewing the petitioner's 
response to the NOLR, the director determined that the petitioner provided sufficient evidence and information 
to overcome the grounds cited in the NOIR and approved the petition. The director's decision has been 
certified to the AAO for review. The AAO will affm the director's approval of the petition. 
The petitioner is a corporation formed under the laws of Bermuda in May 1999. Its U.S. headquarters are 
located and registered in the State of California. The petitioner is engaged in the business of operating 
multiple cruise ships and seeks to employ the beneficiary as its production shows coordinator. 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. § 1 1 53(b)(l)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. 
In the NOIR, the director referred to the beneficiary's past and proposed position descriptions as provided by 
the petitioner. The director determined that based on those descriptions the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary had been employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. In the NOIR response dated August 4, 2005, counsel addressed the 
director's specific concerns and provided additional information about the duties and responsibilities of the 
beneficiary with regard to her prior position abroad as well as her proposed position in the United States. 
Accordingly, the director properly determined that the petitioner met the preponderance of the evidence 
standard in establishing its eligibility for the benefit sought. As such, in light of the instant record of 
proceeding, which supports the director's decision to approve the petition, the director's decision is affirmed. 
In visa petition proceedings, thk 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 director's qpproval of the petitioner's Form 1-140 is hereby upheld.