sustained EB-1C Case: Sales And Marketing

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
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: SEP 0 9 2011 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) ofthe 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, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
· . 
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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 multinational corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its executive manager of 
sales and marketing. 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. 
§ llS3(b)(1 )(C), as a multinational executive or manager. In denying the petition, the director found that the 
petitioner failed to establish: l) that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity; and 2) that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel submits an appellate brief addressing the director's concerns. Counsel also provided more 
in-depth information with regard to each entity's organizational structure, the beneficiary's placement and role 
within each organization, and the extent of the beneficiary's involvement in the management of an essential 
function within each entity. 
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 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 a "function 
managers." See section IOI(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 10 I (a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). Personnel 
managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees while the term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not 
supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an 
essential, or key, function within the organization. See section IOI(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ IIOI(a)(44)(A)(ii). 
· } 
Page 3 
In the denial, the director found that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's subordinates in the 
United States are professional employees. However, the record indicates that the beneficiary's primary 
responsibility is the management of a function rather than personnel. This point, along with other relevant 
factors, is adequately addressed in counsel's appellate brief. 
Therefore, while the director was correct in placing great emphasis on the descriptions of the beneficiary'S 
duties with the U.S. entity, this element must be assessed in light of a comprehensive analysis of other 
relevant factors, including an entity's organizational hierarchy, the beneficiary'S position therein, and evidence 
of a company's overall ability to relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily perform the daily operational 
tasks. Proper consideration of these factors strongly indicates that both the foreign and the petitioning entities 
are adequately staffed with individuals who are assigned to perform the daily non-qualifying tasks, thus 
relieving the beneficiary from having to allocate her time primarily to the performance of non-qualifying 
tasks. Cj Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006). 
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 capacity. See section 1 01(a)( 44)(A) of the Act. 
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.