sustained EB-1C Case: Textile Wholesale

identifYing data deleted to 
prevent clead) Jnwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Seeurlty 
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: JUl 22 2011 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § IIS3(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been retumed 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.uscls.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
director granted the petitioner's subsequent motion to reopen and affirmed the original adverse decision. 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withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 wholesaler. The 
petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to 
classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)( I )(C) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § IIS3(b)(I)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
In a decision dated June 24, 2009, the director affinned his original finding concluding 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 containing a comprehensive breakdown of the beneficiary's 
proposed position with the U.S. entity as well as a discussion of the petitioner's employees, the educational 
requirements of each position considered to be the beneficiary's subordinate, and the role each employee plays 
in the context of the organization. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(I) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any ofthe 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 finn 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 lim iting this provision to only those executives and managers who 
have previously worked for a finn, 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. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(I )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the fonn of a 
statement which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. 
Page 3 
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. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly 
states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of 
the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Section 
10 I (a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. If a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also 
have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel 
actions. Section 10 I (a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
In the present matter, the director's main focus was on the beneficiary's role in the sales function. More 
specifically, while the director did not dispute the beneficiary's top-most placement within the petitioner's 
organizational hierarchy, he found that the beneficiary'S role in interacting with the heads of other companies 
with regard to sales orders was indicative of the beneficiary performing rather than overseeing the 
performance of an operational function. 
While the AAO does not dismiss the validity of the director's finding, it stands to reason that no beneficiary is 
required to allocate 100% of his time to managerial- or executive-level tasks so long as the record contains 
sufficient evidence to persuasively establish that the non-qualifying tasks the beneficiary would perform are 
only incidental to his/her proposed position. 
In the present matter, the supplemental information submitted on appeal with regard to the job duties and 
educational requirements of the beneficiary's subordinates indicates that the beneficiary is positioned to 
oversee the work of a staff of professional and managerial employees. The record also shows that the 
petitioner had sales representatives in place at the time of filing the petition such that the beneficiary would 
not have to primarily carry out sales tasks. As indicated above, allocating a small portion of the beneficiary's 
time to non-qualifying tasks is acceptable and would not render the beneficiary ineligible for the immigrant 
classification sought. 
In summary, after considering the additional information provided on appeal, the AAO finds that the 
beneficiary would more likely than not be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The AAO has conducted a comprehensive review of the petitioner's record and finds no other grounds for 
denying the instant petition. 
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 met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.