sustained EB-1C Case: Telecommunications Technology

(b)(6)
DATE: AUG 2 0 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service: 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
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: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office for your case. 
Thank you, 
~ '/y) 
~~~~ ~)\ Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner , a telecommunications technology company , seeks to employ the beneficiary in the 
United States as a director of product management. The petitioner filed Form I-140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Worker, on June 12, 2014, seeking to classify the beneficiary as an employment­
based immigrant under 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 
on December 12, 2014, concluding that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary ' s 
duties abroad were primarily managerial or executive. 
On appeal , the petitioner submits a brief disputing the denial and addressing the director 's adverse 
findings. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). Upon reviewing the entire record of proceeding as supplemented by the petitioner's 
submission on appeal , we conclude that the record now contains sufficient evidence to overcome the 
basis for the director ' s decision . 
Specifically, the totality of the evidence now establishes that the petitioner has satisfied the legal 
criteria regarding the beneficiary's qualifying employment with his former employer. 
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.