sustained EB-1C Case: Cruise Line

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 2 1 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland SecurJty 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusett s 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)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 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. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
Page2 
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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 a cruise line where the beneficiary has been employed 
in the position of food and beverage revenue and compliance manager. The petitioner claims 89,000 
employees worldwide and over $13 billion in gross income. 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)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
In a decision dated September 25, 2012, the director denied the petition based on the determination that the 
cruise ship where the beneficiary's employment abroad was located does not qualify as a branch of the 
petitioning entity. The director determined that in order to qualify as a branch of the petitioner, the branch 
must be located at a permanent location that is different from the location of the parent company. The 
director's determination was apparently based on the presumption that the cruise ship that the foreign entity 
owns and operates is equivalent to the entity's business locale, i.e., the location where the company conducts 
its business. 
On appeal, counsel submits a detailed appellate brief as well as additional supporting evidence, establishing 
that the petitioner's cruise ship qualifies as a foreign branch o the U.S. emoloyer because the cruise ship 
where the beneficiary was employed as well as the entire fleet of ships are considered to have 
nationality based on the fact that they carry the which determines the ships' 
country of nationality. The AAO notes that the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish its 
nationality. It is further noted that the petitioner is a foreign entity that conducts business while on 
the high seas and while docked in numerous ports worldwide through its in-port excursions. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has overcome the sole basis for denial. The AAO finds no other grounds for 
denying the instant petition. 
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 met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.