sustained EB-1C Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF NTTD-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 3, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of information technology services, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as a deployment project manager under the immigrant classification of a multinational 
executive or manager. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b )(1 )(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(C). The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish: ( 1) its intent to directly employ the 
Beneficiary, as required by section 204(a)(l)(F) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(l)(F); see also 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(l); (2) a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's 
former foreign employer, under the relevant definitions at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2); and (3) that the 
Beneficiary served in a qualifying managerial capacity for at least one year in the three years 
preceding the Beneficiary's entry as a nonimmigrant manager or executive, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief disputing the denial and addressing the Director's adverse 
findings. The Petitioner also submits evidence relating to the company's ownership structure. On 
October 16, 2015, we issued a request for evidence (RFE) for clarification on issues relating to the 
Beneficiary's duties abroad. We received the Petitioner's response on December 29, 2015. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). Upon reviewing the entire record of proceeding as supplemented by the Petitioner's 
submission on appeal, and the Petitioner's response to our RFE, we conclude that the record now 
contains sufficient evidence to overcome the basis for the Director's decision. 
Specifically, the totality of the evidence now establishes that the Petitioner has shown that: (1) the 
Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary directly, rather than through an affiliate or subsidiary; (2) 
the Petitioner had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer at the time the 
Petitioner filed the Form I -140 petition; and (3) the Beneficiary served in a qualifying managerial 
capacity abroad for at least one year in the three years preceding his admission as an L-1 
nonimmigrant in 2007. 
Matter of NTTD-, Inc. 
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. 
Cite as Matter ofNTTD-, Inc., ID# 14063 (AAO Feb. 3, 2016) 
2