sustained EB-1C Case: Food Manufacturing And Distribution

U.S. Ilepartn~ent of flonieland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Wash~nzton, DC 20529-2090 
identifying data deleted to 
 MAIL STOP 2090 
prevent cimbirl.y unwarranted 
 U. S. Citizenship 
hvaim of pers0r.d privacy 
 and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 07 030 51419 
IN RE: 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
6-v 
John F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
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director will be withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 a manufacturer and 
distributor of high-end chocolate bonbons. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
regional retail manager. 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. 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. In denying the 
petition, the director found that the petitioner failed to establish: 1) that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and 2) that the beneficiary would 
be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel submits an appellate brief disputing the director's findings and arguing, in part, 
that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should consider the totality of the evidence 
submitted. Upon review, the AAO concludes that the director's decision should be withdrawn and 
the appeal sustained. 
While the director was correct in placing great emphasis on the descriptions of the beneficiary's 
duties with the foreign and U.S. entities, this element must be reviewed in light of a comprehensive 
analysis of other relevant factors, including the overall organizational structure, which in the present 
matter is sufficiently complex in both entities, the existence of multiple managerial tiers, as well as 
the beneficiary's position with respect to others within each given entity. Thorough consideration of 
all factors indicates that each entity is widely staffed with individuals who are assigned to perform 
the daily non-qualifying tasks of each entity, thus permitting the beneficiary to primarily perform 
qualifying duties. 
Taken as a whole, the information and corroborating evidence provided is sufficient to meet the 
preponderance of the evidence standard that the beneficiary was more likely than not employed 
abroad and would most likely be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. See section 10 1(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
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. Cj 1361. The petitioner in the instant case has 
sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.