sustained EB-1C Case: Semiconductor Manufacturing

U.S. Department of EIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 3 0 2008 
8 LINO7 131 51124 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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director will be withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 multinational corporation operating in the United States as a manufacturer of 
semiconductors. 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. fj 1 153(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 claiming that the director's paraphrased version of the 
beneficiary's job description omitted key terms that were necessary in conveying the beneficiary's 
managerial role in overseeing rather than primarily performing the job duties associated with an 
essential function. 
Upon review of the record, the AAO concludes that the director's decision should be withdrawn. 
While the director properly sets out parameters that help to identify when someone is acting as a 
function manager, the AAO finds that too much emphasis was placed on the fact that the beneficiary 
was not at the highest-level position with respect to the function managed. Despite the fact that the 
beneficiary's superior has the highest-level position with respect to the essential function, the 
organizational chart submitted in response to the request for additional evidence indicates that the 
beneficiary's proposed position is at a senior level with respect to the essential function and that the 
petitioner is staffed with professional employees, who are charged with carrying out the complex 
duties associated with that function. 
In summary, the AAO finds that the information provided by the petitioner with regard to its 
organizational hierarchy and the beneficiary's duties and responsibilities is sufficient to meet the 
preponderance of the evidence standard that the beneficiary would more likely than not be employed 
in the United States in a qualifying managerial capacity. See section 101(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 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. The petitioner in the instant case has 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.