sustained EB-1C Case: Information Systems

DATE: OCT 23 2012 
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 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
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. § l153(b)(J )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision ofthe 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, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 Delaware corporation operating in the United States as an automated information systems 
and software firm in the directory and telecommunications industry. The petitioner endeavors to classify 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)(I)(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 qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel submits an appellate brief and additional supporting documents addressing the 
beneficiary's managerial capacity in his proposed position with the U.S. entity. 
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 ofthe 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. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). The AAO finds that it is also appropriate 
to consider the beneficiary's job description in light of the petitioner's organizational hierarchy, the 
beneficiary's position therein, and the petitioner's overall ability to relieve the beneficiary from having to 
primarily perform the daily operational tasks. 
While the AAO finds that the director was correct in emphasizing the importance of the description of the 
beneficiary'S proposed job duties, this element should not solely determine whether the beneficiary merits the 
visa classification of multinational manager or executive. The AAO has considered the beneficiary's job 
description as part of a comprehensive analysis, which included a review of the petitioner's overall 
organizational structure and the beneficiary's placement therein. 
Page 3 
The record is persuasive in showing that the beneficiary's proposed U.S. employer is staffed with highly 
skilled staff members and commissioned contractors who are available to carry out the non-qualifying 
operational tasks that enable to the petitioner to sell completed products to its clientele. The petitioner has 
provided detailed organizational charts that depict the beneficiary as a senior member of an entity with a 
complex hierarchical composition. The petitioner also provided job descriptions for the beneficiary's direct 
subordinates and for his role in overseeing their work and the various functions of the individual departments 
within the beneficiary's supervisory control. The record indicates that the petitioner is adequately staffed 
with individuals who are able to relieve the beneficiary from having to allocate the primary portion of his time 
to non-qualifying operational tasks. 
The information provided is sufficient to establish that the beneficiary would more likely than not be 
employed in the United States in a qualifYing managerial or executive capacity, thus meeting the 
preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. The AAO concludes that the petitioner has overcome the 
director's adverse decision. The denial must therefore be withdrawn. 
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 has met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.