sustained EB-1C Case: Textile Manufacturing

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
iaV'Mfim ofpenonal privacy 
PlTRLTCCOPY 
DATE: APR 12 2012 
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 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
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: 
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 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 textile manufacturing and 
trade fIrm. 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. 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 a statement along with a statement from the petitioner disputing the director's 
fIndings and providing additional, more detailed information about the benefIciary'S proposed position with 
the U.S. 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 adniission 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. 
While the director was correct in emphasizing the descriptions of the benefIciary's duties, this element must 
be reviewed in light of a comprehensive analysis of other relevant factors, including the organizational 
structure and the organization's overall ability to relieve the benefIciary from having to allocate the primary 
portion of his time to performing non-qualifYing tasks. Additionally, no petitioner should be subjected to the 
unreasonable burden of having to establish that the benefIciary would allocate 100% of his time to 
managerial- or executive-level tasks. Unless the petitioner fails to establish that the benefIciary would 
primarily perform qualifying managerial or executive tasks, merely showing that some of the benefIciary's 
time would be allocated to non-qualifying tasks would not render that petitioner ineligible to classifY the 
benefIciary as a multinational manager or executive. 
The record is persuasive in showing that the petitioner is sufficiently complex in its hierarchical composition 
and is adequately staffed such that the benefIciary's position would not primarily involve the performance of 
· ,. 
-Page 3 
non-qualifying tasks. The record contains sufficient information about the petitioner's organizational 
hierarchy and the beneficiary's role with respect to an essential function, which he manages, as well as those 
individuals who carry out the underlying tasks associated with the essential function. 
Despite any shortfalls in the beneficiary's job descriptions, the information provided 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 or executive capacity. See section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has overcome the director's adverse findings and the 
denial will therefore be withdrawn. 
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.