All Cases

The AAO determined that the statute allows for a beneficiary to be employed abroad by the 'same employer' (the U.S. entity) rather than a separate foreign office. The record established the Beneficiary worked in a managerial capacity for over one year in Canada before entering the U.S. and that the Petitioner is a qualifying multinational organization doing business in multiple countries.

The appeal was sustained because the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate an ongoing qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. The Petitioner also successfully proved its financial ability to pay the proffered wage as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). The AAO concluded the Petitioner met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) sustained the appeal, finding that the plain language of the statute and USCIS Policy Manual allows for a beneficiary to be employed abroad by the U.S. petitioner within a qualifying multinational organization. The AAO concluded that the principal focus is on the continuity of employment within the same multinational organization, and there is no prohibition on transferring an overseas-based employee directly employed by a U.S. petitioner. The Beneficiary was continuously employed within the Petitioner's multinational organization for at least one year preceding his U.S. entry.

The AAO sustained the appeal, finding that the plain language of the statute and regulations allows for direct employment of an 'unattached' foreign worker by a U.S. employer, provided all other eligibility requirements are met. The Beneficiary was continuously employed by the Petitioner's multinational organization for the required period in a managerial capacity, managing process engineering across U.S. and Asia sites with 75 direct and indirect reports. The Petitioner demonstrated the Beneficiary's role was primarily managerial, overseeing an essential function and exercising discretion over day-to-day operations.

The AAO found that the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish the Beneficiary directed the foreign employer's engineering department, primarily establishing its goals and policies. Evidence demonstrated the Beneficiary was relieved of non-qualifying operational duties by subordinate engineers and exercised wide discretionary authority, receiving only general direction from the foreign employer's chief technology officer, thus meeting the executive capacity criteria.

Upon de novo review, the AAO concluded the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary was employed abroad as a function manager. The Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary managed the foreign employer's essential search and rescue department accounting for a significant portion of its operations abroad. The Petitioner further demonstrated on appeal that the Beneficiary was employed in a senior position and primarily relieved from non-qualifying operational duties by a subordinate chief flight instructor and several other subordinate flight instructors providing search and rescue training to military, police, and civilian clients. The Petitioner sufficiently established that the Beneficiary was employed abroad as a function manager and is eligible for the benefit sought.

Upon de novo review, the AAO concluded that the Petitioner successfully established its ability to pay the proffered wage by a preponderance of the evidence. The AAO considered factors such as net income, net current assets, and other relevant factors under Matter of Sonegawa, including the number of years in business, size of operations, business growth, number of employees, uncharacteristic business expenditures or losses, and reputation within its industry. Since all other eligibility requirements for the multinational manager/executive classification were deemed satisfied, the appeal was sustained.

The appeal was sustained because the Petitioner demonstrated a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer as affiliates within a global accounting and consulting network. The Director had applied an incorrect definition of affiliates, failing to account for firms marketing services under the same internationally recognized name under a worldwide coordinating organization. Evidence showed the Petitioner and the Canadian entity met the specific regulatory criteria for such multinational affiliations.

The Petitioner established a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity through their membership in a global consulting network. Evidence confirmed the foreign employer continues to do business in Canada and the U.S. entity met the one-year doing business requirement. The appeal was sustained after a de novo review determined the Petitioner met the preponderance of evidence standard.

The Petitioner established a qualifying relationship as an affiliate within a global network and proved the foreign entity continues to do business. Evidence showed the Petitioner generated between $12 and $15 billion in annual revenue from 2021-2023, satisfying the 'doing business' requirement. The AAO concluded the Petitioner met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.