sustained EB-1C Case: Non-Profit

U.5. Department of IIon~eland Security 
U S C~tizensh~p and lmm~grat~on Services 
Of$cr ofAdmlnlsrrative Appeals MS 2090 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 07 057 53300 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(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. 
John F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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director will be withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 non-profit entity seeking to employ the beneficiary in the United States as a 
knowledge sharing senior advisor. 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(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 findings and further addressing 
the beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States. Upon review, the AAO concludes that 
the director's decision should be withdrawn and the appeal sustained. 
While the director was correct in considering the beneficiary's position within the overall 
organizational structure, having considered the relevant information on appeal does not lead the 
AAO to the same adverse determination as was reached by the director. 
Notwithstanding any shortfalls, the information provided is sufficient to meet the preponderance of 
the evidence standard, i.e., the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it' is more 
likely than not that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) 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. 5 1361. The petitioner in the instant case has 
sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.