sustained EB-1C Case: Industrial Services

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COP'i 
DATE: OCT 31 2011 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(J)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § JJS3(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, 
erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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 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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 provider of industrial specialty 
services. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its inventory control manager. Accordingly, the petitioner 
endeavors to classity 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. § I I 53(b)(I)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
In a decision dated October 30, 2009, the director denied the petition based on the conclusion that the 
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualitying managerial or executive 
capacity. The director determined that the petitioner failed to provide (1) a detailed explanation of the 
beneficiary'S job duties with the foreign entity; (2) a clear and legible organizational chart establishing where 
within the hierarchy the beneficiary'S position falls in relation to other employees; and (3) job descriptions for 
the beneficiary's subordinates to establish who, if not the beneficiary, primarily performed the daily 
operational tasks within the beneficiary'S department. 
On appeal, the petitioner, through counsel, supplements the record with a more detailed description of the job 
duties performed by the petitioner during his employment abroad, job descriptions of the beneficiary'S 
subordinates as well as other employees within the department that was managed by the beneficiary, and a 
detailed organizational chart clearly depicting the beneficiary'S position in relation to all the employees within 
his department as well as the upper management tier to whom the beneficiary was subordinate. 
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 ofthat 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 "function 
managers." See section 101 (a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 101 (a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). Personnel 
managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
Page 3 
managerial employees. See section IOI(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 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 IOI(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. Ifa 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. Section 101 (a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
Although the job description submitted by the petitioner on appeal indicates that there were certain non­
qualifying aspects to the beneficiary's position with the foreign entity, the Act does not require the petitioner 
to establish that the beneficiary allocated 100% of his time to managerial- or executive-level tasks so long as 
the petitioner establishes that the beneficiary'S non-qualifying tasks were only incidental to his position. Only 
an employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not 
considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections IOI(a)(44)(A) and 
(8) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see 
also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 1988). 
The AAO notes that when examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will 
examine the description of the employment, the relevant entity's organizational hierarchy, the beneficiary's 
position therein, and the entity's overall ability to relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily perform the 
daily operational tasks. In the present matter, the petitioner has supplemented the record with a sufficiently 
detailed description of the beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity. That information is supported by 
a detailed organizational chart that sufficiently illustrates the beneficiary's placement within the foreign 
entity's organization and by job descriptions pertaining to the employees, both supervisory and non­
supervisory, who primarily carried out the non-qualifying tasks within the beneficiary's department. 
After reviewing the supplemental documents described above, the AAO finds that the petitioner provided 
sufficient documentation to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard thereby establishing that the 
beneficiary was more likely than not employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity. See section 101(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. § 1361. The petitioner in the instant case has sustained that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.