sustained EB-1C Case: Laser Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 11, 2024 In Re: 31360342 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of high-performance lasers, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its vice president, process engineering under the first preference immigrant 
classification for multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to 
permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner has the required qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer, that there is "a valid office conducting business abroad in which the Beneficiary was 
employed," and that the Beneficiary was employed abroad by a qualifying entity for at least one year 
in the three years preceding the time of filing this petition. The matter is now before us on appeal 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(1 )(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa available to a noncitizen who "has been 
employed for at least one year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary 
thereof' in the three years preceding the filing of an immigrant petition, and who "seeks to enter the 
United States in order to continue render services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate 
thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive." 
Under the implementing regulations, a petitioner seeking to classify a noncitizen as a multinational 
executive or manager must demonstrate that "in the three years immediately preceding the filing of 
the petition the [ noncitizen] has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a 
managerial or executive capacity by a firm or corporation, or other legal entity" or by its affiliate or 
subsidiary, and that "[t]he prospective employer in the United States is the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by which the [ noncitizen] was 
employed overseas." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A) and (C). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issues to be determined are whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary has been 
employed outside the United States by a qualifying entity and whether his prospective U.S. employer 
is "the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity" that 
has employed him abroad. 
The Petitioner is a publicly traded U.S. corporation with six foreign subsidiaries located in China, 
South Korea, Austria, Finland, Italy and Cayman Islands. Therefore, as acknowledged by the Director, 
the Petitioner satisfies the definition of "multinational" at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2), which requires that 
"the qualifying entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary conducts business in two or more countries, one of 
which is the United States." 
The record reflects that the Petitioner directly employs the Beneficiary, an Australian citizen and 
resident, in the position of vice president, process engineering, in which he is responsible for managing 
process engineering across the organization's United States and Asia sites, with approximately 75 
direct and indirect reports worldwide. The record contains copies of the Beneficiary's annual income 
statements issued by the Australian Taxation Office, which identify the Petitioner as his employer for 
the years 2019 through 2022, as well as evidence substantiating his performance of his assigned 
responsibilities through a combination of remote work and international travel. The Petitioner now 
seeks to transfer the Beneficiary to the United States to continue his employment in this same position 
and requests his classification as a multinational manager under section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 
The Director concluded that because the Beneficiary is directly employed by the Petitioner, as opposed 
to a branch office, affiliate, or subsidiary in Australia, the Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish 
that: (1) it has a qualifying relationship with an "employing entity" in Australia; (2) the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer will continue to exist and conduct business in Australia; and (3) the Beneficiary has 
the required one year of employment with a qualifying entity abroad in the three years preceding the 
filing of the petition. 
In reaching these conclusions, the Director acknowledged that the regulations "allow for a qualifying 
relationship when the prospective employer in the United States is the same employer ... by which 
the [ noncitizen] was employed overseas." However, the Director determined that this language 
"implies that there is an office abroad in which the beneficiary was employed" and emphasized that 
the Petitioner does not have an office in Australia and is not conducting business there. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the plain language of the statute and regulations allows for the 
direct employment of an "unattached" foreign worker by a U.S. employer and that the Beneficiary 
satisfies this classification's foreign employment requirement based on his current Australia-based 
employment for the Petitioner. It further maintains that the prospective U.S. employer in this case is 
plainly "the same employer" that has employed the Beneficiary abroad, as the Beneficiary has been 
and would continue to be the Petitioner's employee. The Petitioner objects to the Director's 
2 
determination that the use of the term "the same employer" in the statute and regulations "implies" the 
existence of a separate foreign office or entity that is doing business in a beneficiary's country of 
residence, and asserts the Director failed to provide sufficient reasoning to support this interpretation 
of the statutory and regulatory language. 
The Petitioner's assertions are persuasive. The plain language of the statute makes an immigrant visa 
available to a noncitizen who "has been employed for at least one year by a firm or corporation or 
other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof' in the three years preceding the filing of an 
immigrant petition, and who "seeks to enter the United States in order to continue render services to 
the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive." 
Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act ( emphasis added). As noted, the implementing regulations at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3) closely mirror the statutory language. The principal focus of the statute and regulations 
is on the continuity of a beneficiary's employment within the same multinational organization. This 
interpretation is consistent with Congress' purpose in creating this classification as a means of 
permanently transferring key managers and executives within a multinational organization. 1 
Here, the Beneficiary has been continuously employed within the Petitioner's multinational 
organization during the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Specifically, the record reflects 
that the Petitioner has directly employed the Beneficiary outside the United States since 2019, that it 
seeks to have him continue rendering his services to the Petitioner ("the same employer") in the United 
States, and that the organization will continue to do business in the United States and at least one other 
country. 
We recognize that most immigrant petitions seeking a noncitizen's classification under 203(b)(l)(C) 
of the Act seek to transfer a managerial or executive employee from a separate foreign entity or 
established office in their country of residence. However, we discern no statutory or regulatory 
prohibition on the transfer of an overseas-based employee who is directly employed by and reports to 
a U.S. company within a qualifying multinational organization, provided that all other eligibility 
requirements are met. We therefore disagree with the Director's determination that the statutory and 
regulatory use of the term "the same employer" implicitly requires that a petitioner have a foreign 
branch office conducting business in a beneficiary's country ofresidence that serves as the "employing 
entity" abroad. 
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary has been 
employed abroad by a qualifying entity for at least one year within the three years preceding the filing 
of the petition, that he is corning to the United States to provide services to the same employer within 
a qualifying multinational organization, and that the Petitioner will continue to do business in the 
United States and at least one other country. 
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established the Beneficiary was employed abroad and 
would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(A). Although the Director requested additional evidence related to 
1 Congress noted "the need of multinational business to transfer key personnel around the world as nonimmigrants is 
paralleled in this category to allow a basis upon which these individuals may immigrate." See H.R. REP. NO. 101-723 
(1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6739, 1990 WL 200418. 
3 
his current and proposed positions, and acknowledged the Petitioner's response in the decision, they 
did not reach a final determination on these issues. 
As noted, the Beneficiary currently holds the position of vice president, process engineering and would 
continue to serve in the same position after permanently relocating to the Petitioner's U.S. 
headquarters. The Petitioner provided evidence that he reports directly to the U.S.-based chief 
operating officer of the global organization and explained in detail how he acts as a senior manager of 
process engineering for the manufacture of laser products for the organization's U.S. and Asian 
operations through 7 5 direct and indirect reports located across several company sites worldwide. The 
Petitioner also provided evidence corroborating the Beneficiary's performance of his assigned 
responsibilities and explained how a combination of modem business technology and international 
travel have enabled him to perform the duties of the position and oversee this function and his direct 
reports while based primarily in Australia. 
After considering the stated job duties in context with the nature of the Petitioner's business, the 
organization's documented staffing levels and management reporting structure, the duties performed 
by the Beneficiary's direct and indirect reports, and other pertinent evidence, we conclude the 
Petitioner met its burden to establish the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and would be employed 
in the United States, in a managerial capacity. The record reflects that the Beneficiary manages an 
essential function of the organization, serves at a senior level both within the organizational hierarchy 
and with respect to the function managed, and exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of 
the activity or function for which he has authority. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. 
Moreover, the record establishes that his duties, more likely than not, have been and would be, 
primarily managerial in nature. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the Petitioner has overcome the grounds for denial of the petition. 
As all other eligibility requirements for the requested classification have been met, we will sustain the 
appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
4