sustained EB-1C Case: Property Investment

" . idenHfving data deleted to 
pli'cveilt cleady unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
wmlJCCOPY 
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 
DATE: MAY 1 7 2012 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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)(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 
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 ofthe director will be 
withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner is a multinational corporation operating in the United States as an international property 
investment company. 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 denied the petition based on the 
finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifYing 
managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the denial and addresses the director's adverse finding. 
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. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and a "function 
managers." See section 10 1 (a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 110 1 (a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). Personnel 
managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. 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 
10 1 (a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(4). 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
In the denial, the director made several observations after reviewing the beneficiary'S job description and his 
placement within the foreign entity's organizational hierarchy. Specifically, the director concluded that the 
job description indicated that the beneficiary allocated the primary portion of his time to tasks of a non-
· . 
Page 3 
qualifying nature and further found that the foreign entity's organizational chart, which shows the beneficiary 
overseeing subordinate employees, was at odds with the job description offered. 
On appeal, counsel addresses the director's concerns, thoroughly explaining how the foreign entity operated 
and the beneficiary's role within the scope of the entity relative to other employees and contractors who 
actually carried out the underlying tasks related to the essential function the beneficiary managed. Counsel's 
statements clarified the beneficiary's job duties with the foreign entity and provided sufficient information to 
overcome the sole basis for denial. 
Therefore, while the director was correct making his findings based on the information that was available at 
the time of the denial, the additional information offered on appeal provides a more comprehensive 
understanding of the beneficiary's position and the job duties he was required to perform during his 
employment with the foreign entity. The petitioner has persuasively shown that the beneficiary was more 
likely than not employed abroad in a primarily managerial capacity. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner in the instant case has met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.