dismissed L-1B Case: Culinary

.
MATTER OF A- & G-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY31,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, planning to operate as a Lebanese restaurant, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a chef in its new office 1 urtder the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(L). The L-lB classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee with "specialized knowledge" to work 
temporarily in the United States. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary: (1) possesses specialized knowledge; (2) has been 
employed abroad as a manager or executive, or in a specialized knowledge capacity; and (3) will be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
On appeal , the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary developed the brand of 
Lebanese food and has the work experience and familiarity with the Lebanese culture to qualify as a 
specialized knowledge employee. 
Upon de novo review, we find that the Petitioner has not overcome the basis for denial. Therefore, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 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 specialized knowledge capacity. Id. The petitioner 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(F). 
.
Matter of A- & G-, Inc. 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or 
her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
If a beneficiary is coming in a specialized knowledge capacity to open a new office, the petitioner 
must submit evidence that it secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation, evidence 
that the new business entity is or will be a qualifying organization, and evidence that it has the 
financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United States. 
See generally , 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(vi). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is seeking to operate a restaurant specializing in Lebanese cuisine. It plans to offer its 
customers "healthy fast food dining" as part of a dine-in, delivery, or take out experience. The 
foreign parent hired the Beneficiary as its head chef and "holder of [the] brand," which 
was claimed to have "transformed " the foreign entity by increasing its staff and expanding its menu 
options. In a supporting statement, the foreign entity's manager, asserted that the 
Beneficiary had "a well-recognized name and reputation" that attracted new customers, thereby 
expanding the company ' s customer base. He further stated that in the proposed U.S. position, the 
Beneficiary will use his "special skills and knowledge to prepare unique Lebanese food" employing 
recipes that he created during his employment abroad in keeping with the foreign entity's "existing 
menu and policies." In a separate business plan, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's duties 
would also include hiring, training, and supervising cooks and other kitchen staff, developing recipes 
and food presentation , planning menus, controlling inventory, and ensuring freshness of ingredients. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be paid $3,500 per month. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the 
United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
As a threshold issue, we must determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. If the evidence is insufficient to establish that he possesses 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's past and intended future 
employment involve specialized knowledge.2 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: (1) a "special" knowledge 
of the company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" level of 
knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. A 
petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition. 
2 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity . 
2 
.
Matter of A- & G-, Inc. 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneficiary's 
knowledge is "special" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's 
knowledge against that of others. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge, the 
petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held 
throughout the particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. The 
ultimate question is whether the petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is special or advanced, and that the 
beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 
Special knowledge concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its 
application in international markets. To establish that a beneficiary has special knowledge, the 
petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct 
or uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular 
industry. 
Because "advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, 
the Petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the Beneficiary has knowledge of or an 
expertise in the organization's processes and procedures that is greatly developed or further along in 
progress, complexity, and understanding in comparison to other workers in the employer's 
operations. Such advanced knowledge must be supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart 
from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and 
type of evidence which establishes whether or not the beneficiary actually possesses specialized 
knowledge. We cannot make a factual determination regarding a given beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of its 
products and services or processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field 
involved, and the nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how 
such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the 
individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner provided a copy of the Beneficiary's resume showing that he 
created the brand name in 1998 and has continued using that name in his "food and 
dish sales" activities, which include attending "cookery courses under [the] supervision of 
' in 2007 and engaging in "fast food preparation" in his own grocery store in 
Beirut in 2010. The resume also shows that the Beneficiary worked as a chef at various restaurants 
when he moved to Armenia in 2013 and started working as a chef for the Petitioner's parent entity in 
2016. The only education identified in the Beneficiary's resume is his attendance at 
from 1981-1985. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director acknowledged that the Beneficiary develops recipes, 
plans menus, and makes decisions about food preparation, but determined that the Petitioner's 
3 
.
Matter of A- & G-, Inc. 
description of the Beneficiary's knowledge, education, training, and employment does not establish 
that he has knowledge that is either "special" or "advanced." The Director instructed the Petitioner 
to discuss the knowledge required to carry out the duties of the foreign position, identify the 
products, processes, or procedures that require specialized knowledge, explain how the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is either "special" or "advanced," and discuss how it compares to others within the 
employer or within the industry among others who perform similar type of work. 
The Petitioner provided a response that did not adequately address the critical elements of the RFE. 
Among the Petitioner's submissions was the above-referenced letter from the foreign entity's 
manager, who referred to the Beneficiary as a "well-known cook" and broadly stated that the 
Beneficiary is "the holder of [the] brand." He did not, however, define the 
significance of the "brand" or relate it back to the Petitioner or to the foreign entity where the 
Beneficiary currently works. The Petitioner also provided a letter from , director of 
the foreign entity, who referred to the Beneficiary as "an exceptional cook," "gifted multitasker," 
and "perfectionist in terms of food quality," and pointed to the Beneficiary's "multicultural 
experience," which allows him to make food adjustments "based on geographic consumer 
preferences," and his "great relationships with all of our suppliers," which has allowed the foreign 
entity to meet various business needs "on short notice." Although both letters discuss the 
improvements that the Beneficiary made to the restaurant, including expanding the menu3 and 
creating new recipes, neither stated how these attributes qualify the Beneficiary as someone who 
possesses knowledge that is either "special" or "advanced." 
The Petitioner also provided two documents that pertain to the Beneficiary's education and training. 
One document was a letter from who identified himself as a chef at a 
in Lebanon and stated that he trained the Beneficiary in "medor catering" from March 1 
through August 31, 2010. The letter did not define the term "medor" or explain the significance of 
this type of catering to the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge or its relation to his 
proposed employment with the Petitioner and his current employment with the foreign parent entity. 
Another document was titled and appears to be a translation containing an illegible 
signature from "Administration"; it states that the Beneficiary was enrolled in a hotel food 
technology course at the _ on October 5, 2007 and "terminated" that 
course on June 9, 2009. We note, however, that this course and its dates of attendance were not 
included in the Beneficiary's resume. We further note that the Petitioner did not state how this 
course is relevant to the Beneficiary's current employer or his claimed specialized knowledge. 
Moreover, the' did not identify the translator of the document, which does not contain a 
certification from that translator certifying the English language translation as complete and accurate 
and establishing the translator's competence to translate from the foreign language into English. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English language 
translation of the document, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated material is 
accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's claims. 
3 The Petitioner provided the original menu and the expanded menu that the Beneficiary is claimed to have expanded. 
4 
.
Matter of A- & G-, Inc. 
Lastly, the Petitioner provided two reference letters about the Beneficiary's prior work experience. 
The first was a certified translation of a reference letter that pertained to the Beneficiary's 
employment from April to November 2014 at it stated that the Beneficiary was 
a creative chef who was "invaluable" and had full control of the kitchen, including menu selections, 
food purchase and preparation, and staff. The other letter pertained to the Beneficiary's employment 
at restaurant in April 2015; it referred to the Beneficiary as' and stated that 
during his employment as chef he created recipes, designed menus, and trained the staff. Again, 
neither reference letter states how the Beneficiary gained "special" or "advanced" knowledge of the 
petitioner's products or services. 
In the denial decision, the Director found that the submitted evidence did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's foreign and proposed positions require either special knowledge of the company's 
products that is uncommon in the industry and could not be easily transferred, or an advanced level 
of knowledge or expertise of the organization's processes and procedures. The Director further 
found that the Petitioner did not establish the minimum time, training, and experience that is 
required to be able to perform the duties of the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge 
position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not distinguish the Beneficiary's knowledge as either "special" or 
"advanced" and does not offer new information to establish that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge. Rather, the Petitioner refers to previously submitted evidence without 
explaining how the Beneficiary's prior employment and training relate to the petitioner or how they 
resulted in the specialized knowledge the Beneficiary is claimed to possess, particularly given that 
the training, which took place in 2009 and 2010, and the prior employment, which took place 
between November 2013 and March 2016, preceded the current employment by as much as seven 
years. The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary has a "well-established name and reputation" 
and has developed "unique recipes," which require approximately one year to train others to execute 
in the Beneficiary's absence. Although the Petitioner, like other restaurateurs, may have its own 
secret recipes, it has not sufficiently shown that its recipes are inherently more difficult to learn or 
prepare than those of rival companies. The Petitioner does not substantiate these claims. The 
Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
A petitioner's statements may provide persuasive evidence of specialized knowledge if they are 
detailed, specific, and credible. Here, the Petitioner asks us to put great weight on its statements 
regarding the Beneficiary's knowledge of Lebanese cuisine. However, the record lacks probative 
evidence demonstrating that extensive training is required to perform the Beneficiary's duties, either 
within or outside of the organization. While there may not be any employees with the exact same 
knowledge the Beneficiary possesses, the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is in fact significantly different from that generally held by workers in similar positions 
in the restaurant industry, or that it would require up to a full year to acquire the knowledge needed 
for the proposed position. 
5 
Matter of A- & G-, Inc. 
For the above reasons, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special or 
advanced knowledge. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. The appeal 
will be dismissed for this reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A- & G-, Inc., ID# 1420331 (AAO July 31, 2018) 
6