dismissed L-1B Case: Bookbinding

ida(mB-mb 
prevent dearly unwam 
l11vd0n of personal 
pwc copy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mess. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washtngtorl, DC 2052') 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 02 102 53333 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JWI 3 0 2MM 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(] 5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(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 office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
h 
EAC 02 102 53333 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimrnigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The ~etitioner was established in the United States June 15. 2000. and claims to be in the bookbinding. 
restoiation, and rebinding business. The petitioner claims to' be a subsidiary om 
ocated in Lebanon. The petitioner declares four employees. The petitioner seeks to employ 
the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as a marketing manager of its new office for a period of one 
year, at a yearly salary of $40,000.00. The director determined that the evidence submitted was insufficient to 
establish that the beneficiary would be employed by the U.S. entity in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's decision and states that the evidence is sufficient to establish 
that the beneficiary will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
To establish L-1 eligibility, the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the 
immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 1 101(a)(15)(Id). Specifically, with~n 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)(1)(ii) states, in part: 
Intrucompany transferee means an alien who, within three years preceding the time of his or her 
application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad continuously for one 
year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary 
thereof, and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to render his or her 
services to a branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof in a capacity 
that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The reguIation at 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(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 (l)(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 
education, training, and employment qualifies hidher to perform the intended 
EAC 02 102 53333 
Page 3 
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 possesses and will be employed primarily in a 
"specialized knowledge" capacity as defined in the Act and the regulations. 
Section 2 14(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 184(c)(2)(B), provides the following: 
For purposes of section lOl(a)(lS)(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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(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 initially described the beneficiary's proposed duties in the petition as setting strategic planning 
goals, setting sales quotas and expenses, advertising development, and promoting the U.S. entity's products. 
In a letter dated January 29, 2002, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary is responsible for developing and 
implementing marketing strategies including promotion, advertising, pricing research, and creating product 
samples. 
The petitioner submitted a translated copy of the beneficiary's Bachelor of Arts degree received from Notre 
Dame University, Louaize. The petitioner also submitted samples of booklets and other materials bound and 
rebound by its company. The petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's resume that described her 
experience as a marketing and sales manager including: 
Developing and implementing marketing strategies; responsible for product development, 
promoting and advertising the bindery services. 
Identifying market opportunities by applying advanced prospecting and direct selling, as 
well as monitoring customer satisfaction system. 
Responsible for introducing advertising approaches that would boost sales and increase 
product and binding service awareness. 
Prepare sales data and references for product analysis. 
Dealing and serving the needs of demanding professional clients. 
Training and managing the daily activities of the staff in order to meet objectives in 
growth, development and profitability. 
Conducting research on pricing and product samples to deliver measurable business 
results. 
Evaluating internal management structure analysis, recommending enhancements, 
implementing solutions in order to formulate risk-management strategies. 
EAC 02 102 53333 
Page 4 
a Assist management with recruiting and employee relation issues and provide counsel in 
corrective action. 
Working cIosely with the G.M on the identification, selection, and monitoring of key 
project developments including the company expansion into the United States. As well 
as assisting in the submission of sophisticated business plan. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence on this issue, the petitioner provided a breakdown 
of the beneficiary's proposed duties as: 
[The beneficiary's] job duties are broken down as follows: Marketing and sales 50% of the 
time devoted to marketing, sales and promotions (i.e. meeting with prospective customers, 
developing advertising, compiling sales reports, listings, web sites, etc.). She would work 
closely with the general manager in identification and monitoring of key developments and 
productkervice improvement and innovation. She will also dedicate 40% of her time to 
management and production in order to meet production deadlines and insure quality, and 
also administering finances, etc. 
In a letter dated May 10, 2002, the general manager of the foreign entity described the beneficiary's duties as 
being responsible for marketing and selling the petitioner's product, closing deals, and negotiating prices. In 
a letter dated May 7, 2002, the Director of Geographic Affairs, Ministry of Defense, stated that the 
beneficiary sets and negotiates prices for the foreign entity's products and services, and "explains impositions 
and materials to use." 
The petitioner submitted a company business plan for the U.S. entity, which included a description of a 
management plan as follows: 
*- management plan, along with the marketing and financial management plans, sets the foundation for and facilitates the success of our business. 
Responsible managers wiIl be involved in evaluating internal management structure analysis, 
recommending enhancements, implementing solutions in order to formulate risk-rnanagement 
strategies. Assist management with recruiting and employee relation issues and provide 
counsel in corrective action. Manage the information system (Reports, correspondence, 
filing, orders.. .etc.). Track and delegate workflow and oversee administrative support 
services. Insure proper source utilization and operational standards. 
The director denied the petition after determining that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
would be employed by the U.S. entity in a specialized knowledge capacity. The director stated that the 
evidence failed to show that the beneficiary, as a marketing manager, would need specialized knowledge to 
perform her duties. The director noted that a marketing manager needs to he familiar with the product he or 
she is selling, but the familiarity does not constitute specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's decision and asserts that the beneficiary has acquired 
proprietary knowledge of the company's products and processes and has developed marketing techniques 
essential to market the entity's products in the United States. Counsel also asserts that the beneficiary 
possesses knowledge that is valuable to the petitioner's competitiveness in the marketplace. Counsel 
contends that the beneficiary is uniquely qualified to contribute to the petitioner's knowledge of the foreign 
entity's operating procedures as a result of being a marketing manager abroad. 
EAC 02 102 53333 
Page 5 
Upon review of the petition and evidence, the record as presently constituted is not persuasive in 
demonstrating that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that the beneficiary will be employed 
in a capacity involving specialized knowledge. Although the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's proposed 
position requires specialized knowledge and that she has acquired proprietary knowledge of the petitioner's 
products, marketing techniques, and services, it has failed to produce independent documentary evidence to 
substantiate such claims. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Mailer of Treasure Crufl of Californiu, 
14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
In examining the specialized knowledge capacity claim, the MO will initially look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a detailed description 
of the services to be performed sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. ld. In the instant matter, the 
petitioner stated that the beneficiary would spend 50 percent of her time devoted to marketing, sales, and 
promotions; and would spend 40 percent of her time devoted to the management and production of the 
company's product. Skill in performing marketing and sales tasks does not equate to a special knowledge of 
the entlty's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, or other interests and its application in 
international markets. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary possesses an advanced level of 
knowledge of, or expertise in, the organization's processes or procedures. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's resume, which indicated that the beneficiary had 
experience in developing and implementing marketing strategies, introducing advertising approaches, 
identifyng market opportunities, and preparing sales data. The petitioner has not submitted any evidence of 
the knowledge and expertise required for the beneficiary's position as marketing manager that would 
differentiate that employment from the position of marketing manager at other companies within the industry. 
Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Mrrtler c!f Trrclsure Craft of Califurnia, supra. Specifics are 
clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties involve specialized knowledge otherwise 
meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. 
See Fedin Bros. Co., Lfd. v. Savrr, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'cl, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In accordance with the statutory definition of specialized knowledge, a beneficiary must possess "special" 
knowledge of the petitioner's product and its application in international markets, or an "advanced level" of 
knowledge of the petitioner's processes and procedures. See section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Here, the 
evidence demonstrates that the beneficiary possesses the skill required to work in the U.S. entity's marketing, 
sales, and advertising departments dealing with various bookbinding applications and processes, not a special 
knowledge of the petitioner's processes and procedures. Furthermore, although the petitioner's approach to 
bookbinding processes may be unique or specialized, the beneficiary's proposed duties in the marketing, 
sales, and advertising departments will not necessarily qualify as advanced. 
In conclusion, there is no evidence of record to show that the position offered by the U.S. entity requires 
specialized knowledge to perform. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge of the petitioner's products, processes, or procedures. 
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 has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.