sustained EB-1C Case: Textile Manufacturing

!. ., , I!f 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwananted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
DATE: APR 11 201Z OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant 
to Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.Dscis.gov 
). • , III 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant 
visa. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be sustained. 
The petitioner is engaged in textile manufacturing and trade, and it seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as a merchandising manager. 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. § ll53(b)(1)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition on the following grounds: (1) the petitioner failed to establish 
that the beneficiary's employment abroad was within a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity, (2) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the U.S. in 
a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, (3) the petitioner failed to present evidence that 
both the foreign and U.S. company are doing business, and (4) the petitioner failed to establish 
that it has the ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage. 
Upon review of the record, the AAO withdraws the director's decision and sustains the appeal. The 
Form 1-129 indicates that the beneficiary will be employed in the position of merchandising 
manager. The petitioner provided a detailed description of the job duties performed by the 
beneficiary with the foreign company, and provided an organizational chart indicating the 
subordinates supervised by the beneficiary. In addition, the petitioner provided a detailed job 
description with a percentage breakdown for each duty for the proffered position. The petitioner 
also provided an organizational chart of the petitioner and job descriptions for the positions 
supervised by the beneficiary. The beneficiary is supervising professional employees who will 
relieve him from performing non-qualifying duties. 
In addition, the petitioner provided financial documents, tax documents and invoices to indicate that 
both the foreign company and the petitioner are currently doing business. Finally, the petitioner 
provided financial documents and tax returns to indicate that the petitioner has sufficient assets to 
pay the wages offered to the beneficiary. 
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. Here, that burden has been 
met. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.