sustained EB-1C Case: Diamond Tools

identifying dat8 deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
Pl TBLTC COPY 
DATE: SEP 1 2 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Ofiice (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
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. § 1 1 53(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, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, 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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained, 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 multinational corporation operating in the United States as an importer and distributer of 
diamond tools. Accordingly, 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. 
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 corning to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner is ineligible based on its failure to meet two 
statutory requirements. Specifically, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity or that he would be 
employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. Additionally, relying on the 
common law definition of the term "employee," the director concluded that the petitioner and the beneficiary 
do not have an employer-employee relationship. 
On appeal, counsel submits an appellate brief in which he fully addresses all of the director's adverse 
findings. In response to the findings regarding the petitioner's statutory ineligibility, counsel supplements the 
record with detailed information delineating the beneficiary's roles and job duties in his respective positions 
with the foreign and U.S. entities. Counsel has also presents legal arguments addressing the common law 
basis for denial. 
Despite the sound legal grounds that formed the basis for the director's decision, the AAO finds that on 
appeal, the petitioner established its statutory eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. On the basis of 
this finding, the director's denial must be withdrawn. 
• 
Page 3 
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.