sustained EB-1C Case: Food Products

U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
MAIL STOP 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. 5 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. 
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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 engaged in the sale and distribution of noni plant-based food 
products. 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. 
5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on the 
determination that that the beneficiary would not 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. Counsel provides additional 
information about the beneficiary's proposed employment, explaining in greater detail the beneficiary's role 
within the U.S. entity and his specific position with respect to others in the petitioner's organizational 
hierarchy. Upon review, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has overcome the director's findings and that 
the decision denying the petition must therefore be withdrawn. 
While the director was correct in considering the beneficiary's subordinates as an indicator of whether 
eligibility has been established, this element should be reviewed in light of other relevant factors, including 
the beneficiary's job duties, the petitioner's overall organizational structure, and the beneficiary's position 
with respect to others in the organization. Proper consideration of these factors indicates that the petitioner is 
widely staffed with individuals who are assigned to perform many of the petitioner's daily non-qualifying 
tasks. While the record indicates that a portion of the beneficiary's time is allocated to tasks that may be 
deemed to be non-qualifying, the evidence indicates that the primary portion of the beneficiary's time would 
not be spent performing those tasks, but rather that the beneficiary would more likely than not spend a 
majority of his time performing tasks within a qualifying managerial capacity. 
In summary, the information provided is sufficient to establish that the beneficiary would most likely be 
employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity and thereby meets the 
preponderance of the evidence standard. See sections 10 1 (a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. The petitioner in the instant case has met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.