sustained EB-1C Case: Manufacturing

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: JUL 31 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Se.urity 
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)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant 
visa. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be sustained. 
The petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of electronic and plastic components for cell 
phones, automobiles, etc. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its Manager of Engineering 
Decorating Department. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classifY the beneficiary as an 
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On September 24, 2010, the director denied the petition concluding the following: (I) the 
petitioner failed to establish that it is a United States employer that has been doing business in 
the United States for one year prior to filing the instant petition, (2) that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary's employment in the U.S. will be in a qualifYing managerial or 
executive capacity, and (3) the petitioner failed to establish that it has the ability to pay the 
beneficiary's proffered wage. 
Upon review ofthe record, the AAO withdraws the director's decision and sustains the appeal. The 
petitioner provided numerous documents, including tax returns, quarterly wage reports, lease 
agreements, photographs of the leased space, invoices, organizational charts, and a detailed job 
description of the job duties to be performed by the beneficiary. Upon review of all of the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner, the AAO finds that the petitioner has overcome the 
director's concerns and the appeal will be sustained. 
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. Here, that burden has been 
met. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.