sustained EB-1C Case: Information Technology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent ck.::.~·:j !Jilwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
1'lmlJC COpy 
DATE: MAY 0 3 201l 
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)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(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, 
PerryRhew 
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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 multinational corporation operating in the United States as an IT consulting fIrm. 
Accordingly, 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)(1)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. The director concluded 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 disputing the director's fIndings and pointing out facts in the 
record that address the issue of the benefIciary's proposed position with the petitioning entity. 
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 1 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. § 204.50)(5). The AAO will also consider other 
relevant factors, including the petitioner's organizational hierarchy, the benefIciary'S position therein, and the 
overall availability of human resources to relieve the benefIciary from having to primarily perform the 
petitioner's daily operational tasks and allow the benefIciary instead to focus his time primarily on the 
performance of qualifying managerial- or executive-level job duties. 
While it is certainly reasonable and often necessary to consider the size of a petitioner's in-house staff to 
determine who carries out the daily operational tasks, the role of outsourced labor should not be disregarded 
and should also be considered in gauging the petitioner's capability to relieve the benefIciary from having to 
allocate the primary portion of his or her time to the performance of non-qualifying operational tasks. The 
statutory provisions state only that the benefIciary must primarily perform tasks in a managerial or executive 
capacity in order to meet at least one of the statutory defInitions; the benefIciary will not be precluded from 
Page 3 
qualifying for the immigrant classification sought merely by virtue of performing some non-qualifying tasks 
that are only incidental to the proposed position. 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 101 (a)(44)(A) and (B) 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 finds that while the beneficiary will perform some tasks that are indicative of providing services, 
the record contains sufficient documentation to show that the beneficiary would more likely than not allocate 
his time primarily to overseeing the work of professionals who carry out a variety of IT services for the 
petitioner's client companies. 
The AAO concludes that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying 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 met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.