dismissed L-1B Case: Baking Equipment

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W.. Rm. A3042 
mLIC COPY 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 03 254 50264 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 11 0 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the officethat originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
qvt L-q 
) Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
I Administrative Appeals Office 
b 
SRC 03 254 50264 
Page 2 
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 AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1B nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of 
Texas that is operating as an importer and manufacturer of commercial ovens. The petitioner claims that it is 
the subsidiary of the beneficiary's foreign employer, located in Mexico City, Mexico. The petitioner now 
seeks to employ the beneficiary as its bakery machine supervisor for two years. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed by the United States entity in a specialized knowledge capacity. The director noted that the 
beneficiary's knowledge of the foreign entity's machines, which are to be sold by the petitioner, is not limited 
to a restricted number of individuals in the baking field, and is not "sufficiently esoteric and difficult to obtain 
to merit the bestowal of L-1B classification." 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and explains that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowleclge of the 
foreign entity's equipment, techniques, and procedures, which the beneficiary acquired during his three years 
of work experience with the foreign entity. Counsel clarifies evidence previously submitted, stating that an 
explanation of the beneficiary's work experience prior to his employment with the foreign entity was provided 
to illustrate the beneficiary's background in the industry, not as evidence that the beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge could be acquired at an employer other than the foreign entity. Counsel submits a brief in support 
of the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for the nonimmigrant L-1 visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue 
rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, 
executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the alien are 
qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (I)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment abroad with 
a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior educaion, 
SRC 03 254 50264 
Page 3 
training, and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended services in the United States; 
however, the work in the United States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The issue in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary would be employed by the United States entity in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the following: 
For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered to be serving in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has a special 
knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets or has an 
advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines "specialized knowledge" as: 
[Slpecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization's product, 
service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and its application in 
international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the organization's 
processes and procedures. 
The petitioner submitted the nonimmigrant petition on September 19, 2003. In an attached "Support 
Declaration," the petitioner provided the following explanation for the beneficiary's proposed emplc~yment in 
the United States: 
The purpose of the request of the L-1B visa is to place [the beneficiary] in the position to 
train, supervise and coordinate bakers who will operate bakery machines and our specialized 
bakery ovens. In addition, he will provide the specific know-how in the use of [the 
petitioner's] ovens for the production of a variety of Mexican and European bread style, 
baguettes and pastries that are commercialized in the United States. [The beneficiary] will be 
employed by the U.S. company to apply his technical knowledge and experience in thle 
implementation of training programs for the future bakers who will use the oven for thls 
production of Mexican and European bread style, baguettes and pastries. 
The petitioner outlined the following job duties for the beneficiary's proposed position: 
Supervising [the] operation of [the petitioner's] ovens to ensure conformance to 
specifications; 
Developing and implementing programs to train [the] company's personnel in the 
elaboration of baguettes, Mexican and European bread style and pastries with [the 
petitioner's] ovens; 
Providing assistance to the clientele who requires [sic] technical and maintenance 
services in the operation of [the petitioner's] ovens; and 
SRC 03 254 50264 
Page 4 
Providing specialized techniques to produce Mexican and European bread style, 
baguettes and pastries with [the petitioning organization]. 
The petitioner explained that the beneficiary is qualified for the position of bakery machine supervisor as a 
result of his eight years of employment experience as a baker and bakery machine supervisor in various 
bakeries in Mexico. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary possesses "skilled knowledge" in the lbllowing: 
(1) preparing a variety of Mexican and European breads and pastries; (2) installing and operating 
sophisticated bakery ovens manufactured by the foreign company; (3) training personnel in the operation of 
bakery ovens; and (4) supervising personnel in the application of the petitioner's baking techniques. 
The director issued a request for evidence dated September 30, 2003, noting that the record did not 
demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. The director referenced a 1994 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (now Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)) memorandum as 
providing guidance in establishing that an alien possessed specialized knowledge, and noted that the 
beneficiary's knowledge must be shown to be different and advanced from the knowledge genei-ally held 
within the industry. Memorandum fro-~ctin~ Associate Commissioner, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, Interpretation of Specialized Knowledge, CO 214L-P (March 9, 1994). The director 
requested that the petitioner submit "evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy or 
distinguished by some unusual quality and not generally known by practitioners in the field." Thl: d~rector 
also noted that the beneficiary's knowledge of the petitioner's processes and procedures must be more than the 
basic or elementary knowledge possessed by others in the field. 
Counsel responded in a letter dated October 8, 2003, explaining that the purpose of the beneficiary's transfer 
to the United States is to apply his technical knowledge and experience to the implementation of training 
programs for bakers who will use the petitioner's specialized ovens. Counsel stated: 
[The beneficiary] will provide the specific technical know-how in the use of [the petitioner's] 
ovens for the production of a variety of Mexican and European style bread, baguettes and 
pastries that are commercialized in the United States. The clients of [the petitioner] who 
purchase the company's specialized commercial ovens are hotels, Mexican bakeries and 
restaurants. Moreover, [the beneficiary] will present technical seminars to the bakers and to 
baker machine supervisors in reference to the operation and maintenance of [the petitioner's] 
ovens, and the production of Mexican and European style bread, baguettes and pastries 
utilizing [the petitioner's] commercial ovens. 
Counsel also made the following claims with regard to the beneficiary's specialized knowledge: (1) the 
beneficiary is highly skilled in the operation of the petitioner's commercial ovens, and possesses knowledge 
that is valuable to the petitioner' s competitiveness in the marketplace; (2) the beneficiary is a key employee 
of the foreign entity as a result of his special knowledge; (3) while employed by the foreign entity, the 
beneficiary enhanced the company's productivity, competitiveness, image, and financial position: (4) the 
beneficiary has substantial experience as a baker and bakery machine supervisor; and (5) the bei~eficiary 
acquired his specialized knowledge of the product manufacturing process through his training and 
employment with the foreign entity. 
Counsel explained that the beneficiary is needed in the petitioning organization as a result of the pe.:itionerls 
failed attempts to hire a qualified United States employee as a baker-supervisor. Counsel stated that without 
SRC 03 254 50264 
Page 5 
the beneficiary, the petitioner would experience a significant interruption in its business while training 
another employee for the position. Counsel also claimed that the lack of persons in the United States 
qualified for the position justifies the beneficiary's transfer. 
In support of the beneficiary's classification as a specialized knowledge employee, counsel also stated that no 
other corporation manufactures the commercial ovens used by the petitioner, and noted that the beneficiary 
has knowledge of "the operation of commercial ovens and the ability to adjust Mexican and European recipes 
into an automatic process without changing the end product (quality of the bread), which is of a sophisticated 
nature, although not unique to the foreign firm." 
Counsel further contended that CIS is misapplying the guidelines from the 1994 memorandum. Counsel 
stated that when determining specialized knowledge, there is no requirement that the beneficiary's knowledge 
be unique, proprietary, or not commonly found in the United States labor market. 
In a decision dated October 22, 2003, the director determined that the petitioner did not establish that the 
beneficiary has "a sufficient level and amount of specialized knowledge of the petitioning 
organizationlindustry to qualify for L-1B status." The director stated that the record does not demonstrate 
that the beneficiary's specific knowledge is limited to the petitioning organization or foreign entity, or to a 
narrow group of individuals in the baking field. The director also stated that the fact that the beneficiary 
acquired his knowledge through his work in several bakeries in Mexico indicates that the beneficiary's 
training and experience can be gained through employment with companies other than the foreign entity. The 
director further notes that the petitioner's inability to recruit a specialized baker-supervisor in the United 
States "does not in and of itself mean the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge." Consequently, the 
director denied the petition. 
Counsel filed an appeal on November 20, 2003 stating that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge 
as a result of his three years of work experience with the foreign company, during which he acquired 
knowledge of the organization's specialized products, equipment and techniques. Counsel claim:; that the 
beneficiary's specialized knowledge consists of the following: (1) installing and operating the "sopl~isticated 
bakery ovens" manufactured by the foreign company; (2) training the employees who would operate the 
ovens; and (3) supervising personnel in the preparation of Mexican and European-style breads. Counsel also 
states that during the beneficiary's three years of employment with the foreign entity, the benefi~siary has 
gained experience in the operation and techniques related to the foreign company's commerciiil ovens, 
specifically in the "free-hand elaboration of the product utilizing the sophisticated ovens of the petitioner." 
Counsel contends that the director incorrectly concluded that the beneficiary acquired his specialized 
knowledge through his work in other bakeries in Mexico, rather than solely in the foreign organization. 
Counsel claims that the beneficiary acquired his specialized knowledge during his employment with the 
foreign company only. Counsel states that a description of the beneficiary's prior eight years of work 
experience as a baker and bakery machine supervisor "was submitted to establish that the beneficiary had a 
background in the industry which prepares him with the foundation to be properly trained to operate the 
petitioner's product, equipment and techniques." 
Upon review, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed by thl: United 
States entity in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
SRC 03 254 50264 
Page 6 
In examining the specialized knowledge capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a detailed cescription 
of the services to be performed sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. Id. 
Here, although the petitioner has provided a list of job duties to be performed by the beneficiary in the 
position of bakery machine supervisor, the petitioner has not documented that the beneficiary's claimed 
specialized knowledge. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary would be employed for his "skilled 
knowledge" in preparing Mexican breads, installing and operating ovens manufactured by the fore:.@ entity, 
and training and supervising personnel on the use of the ovens. The petitioner also stated in its "support 
declaration" submitted with the petition that the beneficiary was qualified for the position as a result of his 
three years of employment with the foreign entity, during which he "contributed significantly in the training 
of bakers and profitability and expansion of the business." The petitioner submitted untranslatl?d letters, 
certificates, and recognitions from the National Industry Chamber of Bread in Mexico as evidence of the 
beneficiary's experience as a baker and in support of his specialized knowledge. Because the petitianer failed 
to submit certified translations of the documents, the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports 
the petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103,2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be 
accorded any weight in this proceeding. Consequently, the record is devoid of evidence establishing the 
beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge in the field of balung. Moreover, even if the petitioner had 
submitted translated documents, counsel recognized in his October 8, 2003 letter that the docu~nentation 
related to work performed by the beneficiary during his eight years in the baking field. Therefore, the 
beneficiary's employment certificates are not specific to the foreign entity and do not establish specialized 
knowledge of the foreign entity's product. Furthermore, there is no evidence supporting the petitioner's claim 
that the beneficiary "contributed significantly" to the training of the foreign entity's bakers, or why the 
beneficiary's knowledge would be characterized as specialized if he provided the claimed training. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
The petitioner has also failed to differentiate the beneficiary from one who is merely skilled in baking from an 
individual who possesses specialized knowledge of the company's product, equipment, or techniques. When 
analyzing whether a beneficiary's knowledge rises to the level of specialized, it is appropriate for the AAO to 
look beyond the stated job duties and consider the importance of the beneficiary's knowledge of the t~usiness's 
product or service, management operations, or decision-making process. Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Ilec. 1 17, 
120 (Comm. 198 1) (citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. 61 8 (R.C. 1970) and Matter of LeBIanc: 13 I&N 
Dec. 816 (R.C. 1971)).' As stated by the Commissioner in Matter of Penner, when considering whether the 
beneficiaries possessed specialized knowledge, "the LeBlanc and Raulin decisions did not find that the 
occupations inherently qualified the beneficiaries for the classifications sought." 18 I&N Dec. at 52. Rather, 
the beneficiaries were considered to have unusual duties, skills, or knowledge beyond that of a skillecl worker. 
Id. The Commissioner also provided the following clarification: 
A distinction can be made between a person whose slulls and knowledge enable him or her to 
produce a product through physical or skilled labor and the person who is employed primaril:~ 
I Although the cited precedents pre-date the current statutory definition of "specialized knowledge," the AAO 
finds them instructive. As will be discussed, other than deleting the former requirement that specialized 
knowledge had to be "proprietary," IMMACT 1990 did not significantly alter the definition of "spt:cialized 
knowledge" from the prior INS interpretation of the term. 
SRC 03 254 50264 
Page 7 
for his ability to carry out a key process or function which is important or essential to the 
business' operation. 
Id. at 53. 
The instant record supports a finding that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States for his 
ability to produce a product through his knowledge and skills in baking. In two separate letters sutlmitted by 
the petitioner, dated September 28, 2003 and October 2, 2003, the general director of the company explained 
that the beneficiary, as an "expert in dough development and equipment production," would provide training 
to American bakeries that have not adopted an automatic system of preparing breads and would identify the 
financial benefits of this system. The general director stated that the beneficiary's presence in the United 
States was necessary as there are no American workers capable of using the petitioner's automatic equipment 
to prepare Mexican breads. Additionally, the petitioner noted that as a result of the beneficiary's experience 
with the equipment used by the foreign entity, he is capable of adjusting recipes for Mexican breads for use in 
automatic processes without changing the quality of the product. It would appear from these descriptions that 
the beneficiary would not necessarily be employed for his knowledge of the petitioning organization's 
product or equipment, but rather for his ability "to produce a product through . . . skilled labor." Id. at 53. In 
other words, the beneficiary would not be employed in the United States for his knowledge of ihe actual 
machines used by the foreign and United States entities, which would be essential to establishing specialized 
knowledge, but rather as a baker who has trained in Mexico for eight years and is merely experienced in 
altering recipes for use in the machines manufactured by the foreign entity. The petitioner has not 
documented whether the beneficiary's ability to manipulate recipes for use in the automatic bread process is a 
result of his "special knowledge" of the machinery used by the petitioner or the foreign entity. Moreover, the 
petitioner conceded in documentation submitted with the petition that the beneficiary possesses "skilled 
knowledge," which, as previously explained, has been differentiated by the courts from "specialized 
knowledge." While the beneficiary may be considered a skilled baker, the petitioner has not demonstrated 
that he possesses specialized knowledge of the particular equipment used by either company. 
The record is also inconsistent in establishing whether the beneficiary's knowledge is specifk to his 
employment in the foreign entity and likewise, to the equipment or products used by the petitioning 
organization, or whether the beneficiary merely possesses skills as a result of his eight years of work 
experience as a baker in Mexico. Counsel explains on appeal that the beneficiary's eight years of work 
experience as a baker and a bakery machine supervisor prior to his employment with the foreign entity 
offered him a foundation for his employment in the foreign company, but that the beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge was acquired after he joined the foreign entity in 1999. Counsel, however does not recoilcile this 
claim with the acknowledgment in his October 8, 2003 letter. In his letter, counsel noted the requiretnent that 
the beneficiary possess knowledge which can normally be gained only through prior experience with that 
employer, yet stated that the beneficiary's "substantial experience" as a baker and bakery machine s~lpervisor 
"was acquired . . . fiom his work in K Mart, Sam's Club, Aurrera and with [the foreign entity] in lulexico." 
Counsel further recognizes that the beneficiary "has knowledge of a process or a product . . . which is of a 
sophisticated nature, although not unique to the foreign firm, which is not generally known in the United 
States." The AAO recognizes counsel's attempt on appeal to clarify the record by stating that the beneficiary's 
specialized knowledge was obtained after the beneficiary was hired by the petitioner and not as a result of his 
eight years of work experience in other Mexican bakeries. Yet, counsel does not submit evidence that the 
beneficiary's knowledge is specific to the petitioner's product or equipment. Moreover, counsel concedes that 
SRC 03 254 50264 
Page 8 
the process and products used by both the foreign entity and the petitioning organization are not unlque to the 
foreign entity, thereby implying that the beneficiary could obtain this knowledge from another employer. 
This conclusion is further supported by the petitioner's attempt to establish the beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge by submitting letters and certificates obtained by the beneficiary during his eight years as a baker 
prior to employment with the foreign entity. The fact that these documents relate to the beneficiary's 
employment with companies other than the foreign entity casts doubt on the petitioner's claim that the 
beneficiary gained specialized knowledge solely from his experience with the foreign employer. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the.burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
The record is also devoid of evidence pertaining to the personnel in the foreign entity, which would 
distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge as more advanced or .distinct among other bakers employed by the 
foreign entity. The statutory definition of specialized knowledge requires the AAO to make comparisons in 
order to determine what constitutes specialized knowledge. The term "specialized knowledge" is not an 
absolute concept and cannot be clearly defined. As observed in 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, "[slimply put, 
specialized knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a plain meaning." 745 F. Supp. at 15. The 
Congressional record specifically states that the L-1 category was intended for "key personnel." See 
generally, H.R. REP. No. 91-851, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750. The term "key personnel" denotes ;i position 
within the petitioning company that is "of crucial importance." Webster's 11 New College Dictionary 605 
(Houghton Mifflin Co. 2001). In general, all employees can reasonably be considered "imporlant" to a 
petitioner's enterprise. If an employee did not contribute to the overall economic success of an enterprise, 
there would be no rational economic reason to employ that person. An employee of "crucial importance" or 
"key personnel" must rise above the level of the petitioner's average employee. Accordingly, based on the 
definition of "specialized knowledge" and the congressional record related to that term, the AAO rriust make 
comparisons not only between the claimed specialized knowledge employee and the general labor market, but 
also between that employee and the remainder of the petitioner's workforce. 
The 1994 Immigration and Naturalization Service memorandum referenced previously also a1lom.s CIS to 
compare the beneficiary's knowledge to the general United States labor market and the petitioner's v~orkforce 
in order to distinguish between specialized and general knowledge. The Associate Commissioner notes in the 
memorandum that "officers adjudicating petitions involving specialized knowledge must ensure that the 
knowledge possessed by the beneficiary is not general throughout the industry but 
that it is truly specialized." Memorandum from Acting Associate Com~issioner, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Interpretation of Specialized Knowledge, CO 214L-P (March 9, 
1994). A comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge to the knowledge possessed by others in the field is 
therefore necessary in order to determine the level of the beneficiary's skills and knowledge and to ascertain 
whether the beneficiary's knowledge is advanced. In other words, absent an outside group to which to 
compare the beneficiary's knowledge, CIS would not be able to "ensure that the knowledge possessed by the 
beneficiary is not general knowledge held commonly throughout the industry but that it is truly specialized." 
Id. The analysis for specialized knowledge therefore requires an examination of the knowledge in context of 
the foreign and United States labor market, but does not consider whether workers are available in the United 
States to perform the beneficiary's job duties. 
Here, while the petitioner provided documentation of its attempts to locate qualified personnel in the United 
States, the petitioner has not submitted any evidence that the beneficiary possesses knowledge that rises above 
SRC 03 254 50264 
Page 9 
the general knowledge held commonly throughout the foreign entity or within the baking industry. Counsel's 
blanket assertion in his October 8, 2003 letter that the beneficiary acquired skills and specialized laowledge 
of the operation of the petitioner's commercial ovens, which "is not general knowledge held h commonly 
through out the industry" is not sufficient to establish the "special" nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. 
Absent information regarding the skills and knowledge of the personnel in the foreign entity, there is no basis 
in which to compare the beneficiary's knowledge. Counsel offers no distinction between the beneficiary's 
knowledge and that of other bakers in Mexico or bakers employed by the foreign entity. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 193. Accordingly, the beneficiary 
may not be considered "key personnel." 
Based on the above discussion, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary would be employed by 
the petitioning organization in a specialized knowledge capacity. The AAO recognizes the petitionei-'s current 
inability to locate a qualified employee from the United States to assume the position of bakery machine 
supervisor. However, the lack of qualified candidates does not by itself establish the specialized nature of an 
individual's knowledge. The petitioner has not established through documentary evidence that the btmeficiary 
possesses the claimed specialized knowledge in the equipment used by the petitioner and foreign entity, or 
that the beneficiary is a key employee of the foreign organization. Rather, the record supports a finding that 
the beneficiary is a skilled baker employed for his ability to produce the petitioner's product through skilled 
labor. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
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. 9 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
director's decision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.