sustained EB-1C Case: Electronics

(b)(6)
DATE: APR 1 7 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary:. 
u~s~ Department of.Homeliliid security 
u. s~ Citizenship and Immigi-atii>n Services 
Admini_strative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 · 
Washington, De 20529·2090 
U.S._ Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
I -
. PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executiveor 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: 
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 Inight have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
~ 
A~on Rosenberg 
\ ,Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
---· ······ - cl •. ·· --:WW.W·IIS s;gov 
(b)(6)~ ...... · . -
Page 2 
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 appeal will 
be sustained. 
The petitioner is a corporation that is ultimately wholly owned by in Japan. 
As part of a global organization, the petitioner and its related enterprises are engaged in the 
manufacture, marketing, and sale of consumer . and professional electronics. It seeks to employ 
the beneficiary as the Information Systems Engineer/Facilities Manager . . Accordingly, the 
petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a multinational executive or manager pursuant 
to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(C). . . 
On January 24, 2012, the djrector denied the petition on the following grounds: (1) the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary's employment abroad was within a qualifying managerial 
or executive capacity; and, (2) the petitioner failed to establish that the petitioner has been doing 
business in the United States for at least one year. · 
J 
Upon review of the record, the AAO will . withdraw the director's decision and sustain the appeal. 
The director noted in the decision that the petitioner failed to submit evidence that was 
specifically requested in the director's request for evidence. Upon review of the record, the 
response to the request for evidence included all of the documents and infomiation requested by 
the director. Specifically, the petitioner provided a detailed job . description of the job duties 
performed by the beneficiary with both the foreign company and the petitioner; the petitioner also 
provided an organizational chart indicating. the subordinates supervised by the beneficiary abroad 
and with the petitioner. The petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish eligibility fot this 
immigrant visa. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility ·for the benefit sought remains 
entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has been 
met. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained. .. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.