sustained EB-1C Case: Golf Products

identifying data deleted to 
pteVent clearly unw~teo 
invasion of personal prIvacy 
,(}BLIC COP l' 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U. s. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 1 Ii 2010 
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. § IIS3(b)(I)(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. 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.UIc!s.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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 a manufacturer and distributor 
of golf products. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classity 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)(1 )(C), as a multinational executive or manager. In denying the petition, the director found that the 
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualitying 
managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel submits an appellate brief disputing the director's findings as well as additional 
documentation regarding the beneficiary's position within the petitioning organization. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) 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 coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and a "function 
managers." See section IOI(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 10 I (a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). Personnel 
managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly 
states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of 
the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Section 
101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(ii)(8)«2). If a beneficiary directly supervises other 
employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those 
actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(ii)(8)(3). 
In the denial, the director found that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's subordinates in the 
United States are managerial, supervisory, or professional employees. The director also found the petitioner's 
support staff to be inadequate to relieve the beneficiary from having to devote the primary portion of his time 
Page 3 
to non-qualifYing tasks and further commented on the amount of the beneficiary's compensation, finding that 
the proffered wage is not commensurate with that of a multinational executive. 
As a threshold issue, the AAO notes that the director's comments concerning the petitioner's support staff 
indicate that a significant portion ofthe analysis was based on section 10 I (a)(44)(A) of the Act, which defines 
managerial capacity, rather than on section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, which defines executive capacity. 
Given that the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary's proposed employment would be within an executive 
capacity, which involves directing the management of an organization or function, the director need not place 
significant emphasis on the beneficiary's support staff. This is particularly true in the present matter, where 
neither the petitioner's organizational structure nor the beneficiary's job description indicate that the 
beneficiary's key concern was managing employees. 
In addition, the AAO questions the director's reliance on the beneficiary's proffered wage as an indicator of 
whether or not the beneficiary would be employed within a qualifYing capacity. There is no statute, 
regulation, or precedent case law that supports the director's reasoning. 
Additionally, while the director was correct in placing great emphasis on the descriptions of the beneficiary's 
duties with the u.s. entity, this element must be assessed in light of a comprehensive analysis of other 
relevant factors. These factors include the overall organizational structure, which in the present matter is 
sufficiently complex with a number of managers and support staff, as well as the beneficiary's position with 
respect to others within the organization. Consideration of these factors strongly indicates that the petitioning 
entity is adequately staffed with first-line supervisors and individuals who are assigned to perform the daily 
non-qualifYing operational tasks of the business. Cf Family Inc. v. USClS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006) 
In the present matter, the petitioner provided sufficient documentation to meet the preponderance of the 
evidence standard thereby establishing that the beneficiary would more likely than not be employed in the 
United States in a primarily executive capacity. See section 101(a)(44)(B) 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. § 1361. The petitioner in the instant case has sustained that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.