sustained EB-1C Case: Mass Transit Interiors

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: SEP 29 2011 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration SelVices 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE 
SRC 
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. § 11S3(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, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 a designer and seller of mass 
transit interiors. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(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 disputing the director's decision. Counsel provides additional 
information with regard to the petitioner's organizational structure, the beneficiary's placement and role 
therein, and the extent of the beneficiary's involvement in directing the management of each 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 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 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. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section lOl(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § IlOl(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). Personnel 
managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. See section IOI(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Contrary to the common understanding of 
the word "manager," the statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a 
managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised 
are professional." Section lOl(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. Ifa beneficiary directly supervises other employees, 
the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, 
and take other personnel actions. Section 1 01 (a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position within a 
complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the organization, and that 
Page 3 
person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 u.s.c. § 11 0 1 (a)(44)(B). 
Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish the goals and 
policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a subordinate level of 
employees for the beneficiary to direct and the beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and 
policies of the organization rather than the day-to-operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be 
deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the 
enterprise as the owner or sole managerial employee. The beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in 
discretionary decision making" and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization." Id. 
In the denial, the director found that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's subordinates in the 
United States are professional, supervisory, or managerial employees and denied the petition on the basis of 
this finding. However, after conducting a more comprehensive review of the petitioner's submissions, the 
AAO finds that a denial was not warranted. First, a close review of the proposed job duties shows that only a 
small percentage of the beneficiary's time would be allocated to overseeing the work of subordinate 
employees. While the record undoubtedly establishes that the beneficiary has the ultimate authority to hire 
and fire the petitioner's personnel, there is little to indicate that the beneficiary would be directly supervising 
the petitioning entity's entire staff of personnel. Moreover, in reviewing the educational credentials of the 
individuals who are depicted as the beneficiary's subordinates, all three individuals can be deemed to be 
professional employees. 
Additionally, the AAO notes that when examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the 
AAO will examine the description of the proposed employment, 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. After reviewing these relevant factors, the AAO finds that the 
beneficiary's job description is adequately supported by a detailed block organizational chart, which depicts 
an extensive staffing structure sufficient to relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily focus on the 
petitioner's non-qualifying operational tasks. The AAO also notes that the beneficiary's position at the top of 
the petitioner's organizational hierarchy clearly establishes his leadership role and discretionary authority. 
In the present matter, the petitioner provided sufficient documentation to meet the preponderance of the 
evidence standard thereby establishing that the beneficiary would more likely than not be employed in the 
United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. See section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe 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 sustained that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.