dismissed L-1B Case: Computer Export

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
 LIN 02 196 50299 
 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: DEC 0 8 2006 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(] 5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 10 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 office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
dministrative ~ppeals Office 
LIN 02 196 50299 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant 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 5 IOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, an Oregon corporation, is engaged in 
the purchase and export of previously owned computers. The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of Elis 
Computers Ltd., located in Russia. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the export manager of 
its new office in the United States for a one-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be 
employed by the petitioner in a capacity involving specialized knowledge or in a managerial capacity. The 
director further found that the U.S. entity is not a qualifying organization doing business in the United States. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. .On appeal, counsel for the petitioner disputes each of the 
director's findings, and notes that the petitioner need not establish that the beneficiary will be serving in a 
managerial capacity in order to qualify for the L-1B visa classification. Counsel submits a brief in support of 
the appeal. 
To establish L-1 eligibility, the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigratipn and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 1 101(a)(15)(L). 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 
lcnowledge 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. fj 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 hider to perform the intended 
LIN 02 196 50299 
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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. €j 214.2(1)(3)(vi) also provides that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is 
coming to the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity to open or to be employed in a new office, 
the petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
/ 
(A) 
 Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) 
 The business entity in the United States is or will be a qualifying organization as 
defined in paragraph (I)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; and 
(C) 
 The petitloner has the financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and to 
commence doing business in the United States. 
This matter presents two related, but distinct issues: (1) whether the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge; and (2) whether the proposed employment is in a capacity that requires specialized knowledge. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 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. €j 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 nonimmigrant visa petition was filed on May 28, 2002. In an appended letter dated May 24, 2002, the 
petitioner stated that the beneficiary will perform the following duties as the U.S. company's export manager: 
In this position he will be responsible for export of computers and notebooks to the parent 
company in Russia. He will communicate with the parent company and U.S. suppliers to 
coordinate and arrange the export sale of computers and notebooks to Russia. He will interact 
with sales personnel and distributors in Russia. He will represent the Company in contract 
negotiations, resolve problems with Russian customers, and arrive at mutual agreements. He 
will be responsible for sales forecasting, accounting, preparing and examining invoices, sales 
confirmations and shipping documents for export orders to Russia. Moreover, [the 
LIN 02 196 50299 
Page 4 
beneficiary] will be responsible for developing a market for these products in the United 
States. 
The petitioner~oted that the beneficiary had been employed by the foreign entity as a sales manager from 
January 1999 through August 2000, "during which time he has developed proprietary knowledge with regard 
to Company's products and the industry in which the Company operates." The petitioner described the 
beneficiary's previous position as follows: 
Responsibilities include managing all aspects of the company's business related to the. 
importation of computers and notebooks from the U.S. to Russia. Manage all functions 
related to the importation of company's products. Oversee the shipment of products and 
overall business administration. 
Finally, with respect to the beneficiary's specialized knowledge qualifications, the petitioner stated: 
[The beneficiary] is uniquely qualified to contribute to our Company his knowledge and 
expertise of Company's product line in the Russian market developed with our parent 
company. He possesses knowledge that can only be gained through extensive-.prior 
experience with the parent Company. The specialized knowledge gained in Russia is 
extremely valuable to our Company. 
[The beneficiary's] understanding of the Russian market and consumers demand, make him a 
unique candidate for this position. Without the advanced level of knowledge of the processes 
and procedures of the Company that [the beneficiary] developed as the Sales Manager, the 
position in question cannot be filled adequately. 
[The beneficiary] is amply qualified for the position of Export Manager. He has been worlung 
for the parent company for over 1 year. Moreover, he has received a Bachelor's degree in 
Accounting and Auditing from the State Academy of Economics and Law in Russia and a 
Post-Baccalaureate degree in Information Systems from Portland State University. 
The petitioner submitted a "work certificate" from the foreign entity which states that the beneficiary was 
employed as its sales manager from January 15, 1999 through August 28, 2000. The petitioner provided a 
copy of the beneficiary's resume which indicates that he was employed as sales manager with the foreign 
entity from January 1999 through August 2000, where he was responsible for sales management, contractual 
negotiations with key customers and order processing. According to the beneficiary's resume, he was 
. 
 - enrolled at the State Academy of Economics and Law in Russia from September 1995' through June 2000. 
The petitioner did not submit any supporting documents to substantiate its claims that specialized knowledge 
is required to fulfill the duties of the proffered position, nor evidence to establish that the beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. 
In a request for evidence, dated August 5,2002, the director instructed the petitioner in part, as follows: 
LIN 02 196 50299 
Page 5 
Submit evidence that the beneficiary possesses special knowledge of your 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 evidence must establish that the beneficiary's duties abroad 
for the qualifying employment, and the duties in the united States meet the criteria as 
managerial or executive in capacity or a position requiring specialized knowledge. 
Submit a statement gom an authorized official of the peditioner, which describes the duties 
performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and the duties the beneficiary will perform 
under the extended petition. 
Submit evidence to establish that the beneficiary has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with the petitioner or with the petitioner's foreign parent, branch, 
affiliate or subsidiary within the three years immediately prior to the filing of this petition. 
In an October 24, 2002 letter, counsel for the petitioner stated that the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge pursuant to section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act because he "has a special knowledge of the company 
product and its application in international markets." Counsel further explained the beneficiary's 
qualifications as follows: 
The company's Export Manager position requires special knowledge of the intricacies of the 
Russian computer market. The Export manager is- also expected to implement the parent 
company's business model and structure while setting up the foreign branch to facilitate the 
communication process and interrelation between companies. This involves a wide range of 
processes, criteria, specific strategies, cultural peculiarities, knowledge and skill, including: 
knowledge of the specifics of the Russian computer market, knowledge of the required 
product, quality control and strict set of quality criteria, knowledge of the working 
environment established in the parent company, managerial skills, price fluctuations on the 
Russian market, business strategy and growth expectations, existing contacts with Russian 
partners and suppliers, and fluency in Russian and English languages. 
[The beneficiary] possesses many of the characteristics of an employee with "specialized 
knowledge" enumerated in Memo, Norton, Assoc. Comm., Examinations (Oct. 27, 1988), 
reprinted in 65 Interpreter Releases 1194 (Nov. 7, 1988). First, [the beneficiary] possesses 
knowledge that is valuable to the employer's competitiveness in the market place. . . . [The 
beneficiary] was specifically trained and sent to the U.S. to open the foreign branch utilizing 
the knowledge and skills gained during his employment with the parent company. His 
knowledge of the processes and procedures of the Company, is an essential element of the 
Company's competitiveness in the market. 
Third, [the beneficiary] has been utilized as a key employee abroad and has been given 
significant assignments which have enhanced the employer's productivity, competltiveness, 
LIN 02 196 50299 
Page 6 
image or financial position. He has already started the initial phase of establishing the branch 
in the U.S. . . . Obviously these undertakings require specialized knowledge and will enhance 
the company's productivity and financial position. 
Finally, [the beneficiary] possess knowledge which can be gained only through extensive 
prior experience with employer [sic]. [The beneficiary's] prior experience with the parent 
company has given him specialized knowledge regarding the company, products and their 
applicability in international markets. 
The petitioner also submitted an October 23, 2002 letter from the foreign entity's president, who stated that 
the beneficiary, in his position with the foreign entity, "received diversified training while performing the 
following duties: sales management, contractual negotiations with key customers and suppliers, customer 
service supervising, human resources management, assisting the chief accountant, researching various product 
and distribution issues, and wholesale division sales." The foreign entity's president further stated that the 
beneficiary's proposed duties for the petitioner will include: branch operations management, outsourcing the 
product for the parent company, contractual negotiations, retail and wholesale sales management, shipping 
products to Russia, establishing an internet presence, hiring and training staff, and maintaining high quality 
customer service. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a letter from the director of operations for one of its U.S. suppliers, who 
references the beneficiary's "unique knowledge of the configuration of the products which are important for 
the Russian market," and notes that the beneficiary "has unique and specialized knowledge of the Russian 
Market" that is not commonly available in the United States. 
The director denied the petition on February 28, 2003, concluding that "the job duties that the beneficiary is 
performing do not qualify as special knowledge. The beneficiary merely has an understanding of the 
computer systems requested by the foreign entity. The beneficiary is essentially an agent of the foreign 
operation, buying used computers to be sent to the foreign operation to be resold in Russia." The director 
went on to conclude that the beneficiary, as the petitioner's sole employee, would not be employed by the 
petitioner in a managerial capacity. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner disputes the director's findings and asserts that the proposed position 
requires "special knowledge crucial to the company," and that [mlere understanding of the computer systems 
required by the foreign entity is not sufficient." Counsel reiterates the job description provided in his October 
24, 2002 response to the director's request for evidence and asserts that the beneficiary "therefore possesses 
special knowledge required of the Company and qualifies under the L regulations." Counsel also addresses 
the directors' comments regarding the beneficiary's managerial capacity, and notes that the petitioner has 
recently hired an international market analyst. Counsel asserts, 'however, that the petitioner need not establish 
the beneficiary's qualification for managerial capacity. 
On review, the record as presently constituted is not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge or that he will be employed by the U.S. entity in a position requiring 
specialized knowledge. However, as a preliminary matter, the AAO concurs with counsel that the director's 
findings with respect to the beneficiary's proposed employment in a managerial capacity are inappropriate 
LIN 02 196 50299 
Page 7 
and irrelevant, as the petitioner clearly requested that the beneficiary be granted L-1B classification as an 
employee with specialized knowledge. The director's comments regarding the beneficiary's managerial 
capacity are therefore withdrawn. 
When examining the specialized knowledge capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3)(ii). .The petitioner must submit a detailed 
description of the services to be performed sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. Id. 
 It is also 
' 
appropriate for the AAO to look beyond the stated job duties and consider the importance of the beneficiary's 
knowledge of the business's product or service, management operations, or decision-making process. See 
Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. 117, 120 (Comm. 1981) (citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. 61 8 (R.C. 
1970) and Matter of LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 8 16 (R.C. 197 I)).' As stated by the Commissioner in Matter of 
Penner, 18 I&N Dec. 49, 52 (Comm. 1982), 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." Rather, the beneficiaries were considered to have 
unusual duties, skills, or knowledge beyond that of a skilled 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 primarily 
for his ability to cany out a key process or function which is important or essential to the 
business' operation. 
Id. at 53. 
Here, the beneficiary's proposed job duties do not identify services to be performed by the beneficiary in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. For example, the beneficiary's responsibilitiesof managing-the U.S. branch, 
implementing the foreign entity's business model and structure, facilitating communications with the foreign 
entity, managing sales, hiring and training staff, shipping products to Russia, representing the company in 
contract negotiations, forecasting sales, performing accounting, preparing invoices and shipping documents, 
and developing a market for the company's products are all tasks typically performed by any individual 
tasked with overseeing a start-up operation in a new market. If CIS were to follow the petitioner's reasoning, 
any foreign worker transferred to the United States to open a new office would qualify for L-1B status as a 
specialized knowledge worker, simply based on their familiarity and experience with a related foreign entity. 
-~ 
1 
Although the cited precedents pre-date the current statutory definition of "specialized knowledge," the AAO 
finds them instructive. ' Other than deleting the former requirement that specialized knowledge had to be 
"proprietary," the 1990 Act did not significantly alter the definition of "specialized knowledge" from the prior 
INS interpretation of the term. The 1990 Committee Report does not reject, criticize, or even refer to any 
specific INS regulation or precedent decision interpreting the term. The Committee Report simply states that 
the Committee was recommending a statutory definition because of "[vlarying [i.e., not specifically incorrect] 
interpretations by INS," H.R. Rep. No. 101-723(I), at 69, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6749. Beyond that, the 
Committee Report simply restates the tautology that became section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Id. The AAO 
concludes, therefore, that the cited cases, as well as Matter of Penner, remain useful guidance concerning the 
intended scope of the "specialized knowledge" L-1B classification. 
LIN 02 196 50299 
Page 8 
For example, the petitioner emphasizes the beneficiary's familiarity with "a wide range of processes, criteria, 
specific strategies," "knowledge of the working environment established in the parent company," and 
familiarity with "existing contacts with Russian partners and suppliers." The beneficiary's general knowledge 
or familiarity with the foreign entity's "processes7" "criteria," "strategies," "working environment," and 
contacts does not rise to the level of specialized knowledge as contemplated by the statute and regulations. 
Regardless, the petitioner has offered no documentary evidence which would distinguish the petitioner's and 
foreign entity's processes, strategies or environment from that of any other company offering similar services. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I.&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The petitioner also emphasizes the 
beneficiary's formal'education and bi-lingual ability. These qualifications, while valuable to the petitioner, do 
not establish the beneficiary's specialized knowledge of the petitioner's products, services, processes or 
procedures. 
The record is devoid of any documentary evidence that the beneficiary's position involves "special knowledge 
of the company product and its application in international markets" as claimed by the petitioner. Neither the 
foreign entity nor the U.S. entity produces a product. Both companies are in the business of purchasing and 
re-selling previously owned computers manufactured by well-established companies in the industry. 
Knowledge of common PC and notebook software and hardware configurations is clearly widespread 
throughout the computkr re-sale market and is not specific to the petitioner's organization. The petitioner 
attempts to distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge as special by emphasizing the "intricacies of the Russian 
computer market," noting that the market demands "specific configurations," "peculiar" packaging 
requirements, and specific consignment documentation. The petitioner has not attempted to explain or 
document the claimed "in&caciesn or "peculiarities" of the Russian market, nor explained how knowledge of 
the market would amount to specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning organization. Nor has the 
petitioner supported its implausible claim that knowledge of the Russian computer market can only be gained 
with the foreign entity. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not shown that previous experience with the foreign entity or knowledge of 
the Russian computer market is actually required to perform the proposed duties. Based on the evidence 
presented, which includes purchase orders, invoices and shipping documents,, the U.S. company is currently 
engaged in purchasing used computers in the United States and're-selling them to a primarily U.S.-based " 
clientele. While it appears that the company has purchased and shipped some computers to its Russian parent 
company, this is clearly not the primary focus of the business. Such a conclusion is supported by the 
petitioner's reference to its plans to establish an internet presence in the United States, as well as retail and 
wholesale operations.. The petitioner has not shown that knowledge of foreign operating conditions 3s 
required to purchase and re-sell computers in the United States market. 
1 
The petitioner has not submitted any evidence of the knowledge and expertise required for the proffered 
position that would differentiate the beneficiary from other similarly-employed workers within the 
petitioner's group or working for other employers within the computer wholesale and retail industry. It is 
noted that the statutory definition requires the AAO to make comparisons in order to determine what 
constitutes specialized knowledge. As observed in 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General , "[s]imply put; specialized 
LIN 02 196 50299 
Page 9 
knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a plain meaning." 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). The 
term "specialized knowledge" is relative and cannot be plainly defined. 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 a position within the petitioning company that is "of 
crucial importance." Webster's II New College Dictionary 605 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 2001). In general, all 
employees can reasonably be considered "important" to a petitioner's enterprise. If an employee did not, 
contribute to the overall economic success of an enterprise, there would be no rational 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 must 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. 
Here, the petitioner has indicated that the beneficiary p6ssesses specialized knowledge as a result of his 
employment with the foreign entity, noting that he possesses "knowledge that is valuable to the employer's 
competitiveness in the market place" as a result of being "specifically trained to open the U.S. branch utilizing 
the knowledge and skills gained during his employment and training with the parent company's products, 
processes and procedures." Counsel further states that the beneficiary has been utilized as a key employee 
abroad, and notes that the beneficiary has been given significant assignments that have enhanced the 
employer's productivity and financial position. The petitioner offers no further information regarding the 
beneficiary's specific training, nor does it attempt to substantiate its claim that the beneficiary has been 
utilized in significant assignments. The fact that he was chosen to open the U.S. office is not sufficient to 
establish his employment in a specialized knowledge capacity or his status as "key personnel." The record 
contains no detailed employment history for the beneficiary, and the petitioner does not claim that he received 
any special training, such that the AAO could determine exactly what "special" or "advanced" knowledge the 
beneficiary possesses or how he acquired it. Finally, counsel states that the beneficiary's knowledge could 
only be gained by prior experience with the company abroad. Again, no evidence is submitted to substantiate 
counsel's claims. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not 
satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, -534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
, 
 To the contrary, the record as presently constituted does not establish that the beneficiary even possesses one 
year of continuous full-time employment with the foreign entity, much less demonstrate that his employment 
involved specialized knowledge. The petitioner initially submitted a brief statement from the foreign entity, 
identified as a "work ckrtificate" stating that .the beneficiary was employed as a sales manager from January 
15, 1999 to August 28, 2000. In response to the director's request for additional evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's one year of continuous full-time employment abroad, the petitioner re-submitted the same 
document. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for 
denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(14). This evidence was particularly relevant, as the record indicates 
that the beneficiary was attending the State Academy of Economics and Law from September 1995 through 
June 2000, thus raising a reasonable question as to whether his employment with the foreign entity was on a 
full-time basis. For this reason alone, the petition cannot be approved. 
. 
LIN 02 196 50299 
Page 10 
Moreover, in Matter of Penner, the Commissioner discussed the legislative intent behind the creation of t'he 
specialized knowledge category.' 18 I&N Dec. 49 (~omm. 1982). Although the definition of "specialized 
knowledge" in effect at the time of ;Matter of Penner was superseded by the 1990 Act to the extent that the 
foriner definition required a showing of "proprietary" knowledge, the reasoning behind Matter of Penner 
remains applicable to the current matter. The decision noted that the 1970 House Report, H.R. No. 91-85 1, 
was silent on the subject of specialized knowledge, but that during the course of the sub-committee hearings 
on the bill, the Chairman specifically questioned witnesses on the level of skill necessary to qualify under the 
.proposed "L" category. In response to the Chairman's questions, various witnesses responded that they 
understood the legislation would allow "high-level people," "experts," individuals with "unique" skills, and 
that it would not include "lower categories" of workers or "skilled craft workers." Matter of Penner, supra at 
50 (citing H.R. Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. Comm., Immigration Act of 1970: Hearings on H.R. 445, 91st 
Cong. 210, 218, 223, 240, 248 (November 12, 1969)). Reviewing the Congressional record, the 
Commissioner concluded that an expansive reading of the specialized knowledge provision, such that it 
would include skilled workers and technicians, is not warranted. .For the same reasoning, the AAO cannot 
accept the proposition that any skilled worker is necessarily a specialized knowledge worker,. or the 
petitioner's reasoning that any employee chosen to open a new office in the United States should be deemed 
to possess specialized knowledge. 
Overall, the petitioner and counsel imply that merely working for the foreign entity as a sales manager is 
sufficient to bestow "special knowledge" or an "advanced level of knowledge." While &'may be correct to say. 
that the beneficiary is a productive and valuable employee, this fact alone is not enough to bring the 
beneficiary to the level of "key .personnel." Similarly, while the beneficiary's shlls and knowledge may 
contribute to the success of the petitioning organization, this factor, by itself, does not constitute the of. 
specialized knowledge. The beneficiary's contribution to the economic success of the new office may be 
considered, but the regulations specifically require that the beneficiary possess an "advanced level of knowledge" 
of the organization's processes and procedures, or a "special knowledge" of the petitioner's product, service, 
research, equipment, techniques, or management. 8 C.F.R. $214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
Finally, counsel's reliance on the 1988 Norton memorandum is misplaced. It is noted that the memorandum 
was intended solely as a guide for employees and will not supercede the plain language of the statute or the 
regulations. Therefore, by itself, counsel's assertion that the beneficiary's qualifications are analogous to the 
examples outlined in the memorandum ,is insufficient to establish the beneficiary's qualification for 
classification as a specialized knowledge professional. Regardless, the assertions made throughout the record 
merely paraphrase the statutory and regulatory definitions, as well as the above-referenced memorandum. 
Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties encompass specialized 
knowledge; otherwise meeting the definition would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. See 
Fedin Bros.' Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). As 
discussed, the petitioner has not submitted probative evidence to establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is 
uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished by some unusual quality and not generally known in the 
beneficiary's field of endeavor. 
Thus, as the petitioner has not established the beneficiary possesses a special knowledge of the petitioner's 
product or an advanced level of knowledge of the company's processes or procedures, nor has it established 
that the position of general manager within its organization requires specialized knowledge, the director 
LIN 02 196 50299 
Page 11 
rationally determined that the beneficiary does not qualify as a specialized knowledge worker. While the 
AAO recognizes that the beneficiary, as the sole employee of the new office, will cany out key functions 
within the petitioner's organization, and recognizes the petitioner's preference to secure the services of an 
employee who has worked for its parent company, these elements are insufficient to establish eligibility for 
classification as a specialized knowledge worker. There is nothing in the record to suggest that any other 
experienced employee within the parent company's organization, or any employee with a record of success in 
a similar role within the petitioner's industry, could not adequately perform the proposed duties. 
The legislative history for the term "specialized knowledge" provides ample support for a restrictive 
interpretation of the term. In the present matter, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
should be considered a member of the "narrowly drawn7' class of individuals possessing specialized 
knowledge. See 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. supp. at 16. Based on the foregoing, the record does 
not establish that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, or that he would be employed by the,U.S. 
entity in a specialized knowledge capacity. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
'S 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
. 
 alternative basis for denial. 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. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.