dismissed L-1B Case: Education

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-T-I-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 31,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR 
A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an accredited two-year non-profit educational institution, 1 seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as an "Executive Liaison Manager" under the L-1 B nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
§ 10l(a)(l5)(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 possesses specialized knowledge and has been employed 
abroad, and will be employed in the United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider that its educational institution is 
distinct and uncommon in comparison to other institutions of higher learning. The Petitioner avers 
that the Beneficiary gained his knowledge through nearly three decades devoted to the 
implementation of the institution's mission, as established by its founder, and thus possesses the 
knowledge required for the proposed position. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B 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. !d. The petitioner 
1 
The Hawaii government website indicates that the Petitioner "is not in good standing." See 
https:/ /hbe.ehawaii.gov/documents/search.html (last visited Oct. 30, 20 17). In any future filings, the Petitioner must 
provide evidence establishing that it is active and operating in Hawaii. 
.
Matter of H-T-1-
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualities him or 
her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
The relevant statutory definition states that a beneficiary is considered to be serving in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the beneficiary 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. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1184(c)(2)(B). 
Specialized knowledge is also defined as 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses special or 
advanced knowledge in the educational field or that the Beneficiary has knowledge that is special or 
advanced compared to other similarly experienced persons in a related occupation in the same field. 
The Director also found that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary had previously been 
employed in a specialized knowledge, managerial, or executive position and that the U.S. position 
involves a special or advanced level of knowledge in the educational field. 
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 he has been employed abroad and would be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 2 
A petitioner may establish eligibility for an L-1 B visa by submitting evidence that the beneficiary 
and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition. Under the statute, 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 ofthe processes and procedures ofthe company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. 
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 
2 
The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
.
Matter of H-T-1-
of the evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is special or advanced, and that the 
beneficiary's position requires such knowledge.3 
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 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 
beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
Here, the Petitioner states that the petitioning organization "is a unique educational system, distinct 
among other educational systems, based on its foundation and guiding principals [sic] of promoting 
world peace and harmony through education." The Petitioner added that the petitioning 
organization's system is the only educational institutional [sic] in the world created specifically for 
the purpose of fostering world peace through education, with campuses and programs located 
throughout the world." 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary began work for the foreign entity in 1988 as a staff 
member, was subsequently promoted to a senior staff member position, and in 2001 was promoted to 
serve as the liaison officer for the head office of international affairs. In 2006, the Beneficiary was 
assigned to the position of section director of the petitioning organization's 
in Denmark where he worked until 2015. In 2015, he was appointed to serve as the director 
general of the an affiliated organization. The Petitioner notes 
that "[i]t is because of [the Beneficiary's] deep familiarity with the [petitioning organization's] 
educational mission and philosophy, his managerial experience and his knowledge of international 
institutions that [it] requires [him] to work with [it] in Hawaii." 
We have considered the Petitioner's reference to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) policy on the adjudication of L-1 B petitions and in particular USCIS Policy Memorandum 
PM-602-0 111, L-1 B Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 20 15), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy­
memoranda. As explained in the memorandum, USC IS is able to adjudicate L-1 B petitions most 
effectively when a petitioner "explains in detail the specific nature of the industry or field involved, 
the nature of the petitioning organization's products or services, the nature of the specialized 
knowledge required to perform the beneficiary's duties, and the need for the beneficiary's 
specialized knowledge." In this matter, the Petitioner has not provided the necessary detailed 
information required to establish these essential elements. 
3 
Although some aspects of the "special" and "advanced" knowledge definitions may overlap, we will address each 
element individually. 
.
Matter of H-T-J. 
A. Special 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. 
The Petitioner initially asserted that the Beneficiary's qualifications for the proffered position "rest 
upon his specialized knowledge of [the company's] educational philosophy and values, its 
' its 'principles of education,' and the 'learning community' concept which is the 
hallmark of [the petitioning organization's] educational program, as well as his thorough knowledge 
of [the company's] administrative services, processes and procedures, in particular its international 
programs." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the foreign entity claims that the 
"specialized knowledge of our organization is not gained through attendance at a specific training 
course, or series of studies, but rather it develops over a period of many years through exposure to 
our organization and commitment to our educational philosophy." 
The Petitioner also includes job descriptions listing the minimum qualifications and the desired 
qualifications for the Beneficiary's two positions held from 2006 to 2017. Both job descriptions 
indicate that the minimum qualifications are experience in higher educational administration, strong 
English4 and Japanese language proficiency, demonstrated ability to build community outreach and 
relations and collaborate with other universities, organizations and businesses, as well as the ability 
to present information to management and public groups, and to work with mathematical concepts 
such as probability and statistical inference. Both positions also required Microsoft Excel and Word 
experience, 5 strong managerial skills and a demonstrated capacity for leadership. The desired 
qualifications in each job description referred to knowledge of Japanese and other European 
educational systems and demonstrated experience working with either international students or 
international researchers. 6 Thus, the petitioning organization's minimum qualification requirements 
for the "Director and Liaison Officer" in Denmark and the "Director General'' position at the 
do not include specific knowledge of the organization's philosophy or values 
but only requires experience generally gained in higher education administration. The job 
descriptions and requirements alone establish that the Beneficiary's previous positions did not 
require specialized knowledge. 
4 
The position in Denmark also required strong Danish language skills. 
5 
The Beneficiary's latest position also required knowledge of Microsoft Access. 
6 
The position in Denmark also required knowledge of Danish educational systems and desired experience working with 
international students, while the position with the desired experience working with 
international researchers. 
4 
.
Matter of H-T-1-
The Petitioner's assertion that its educational system is unique and distinct among other educational 
systems, because it was created to promote peace and harmony through education is not 
corroborated in the record. Many higher educational systems throughout the world include 
components that foster peace and world harmony.7 Moreover, the Petitioner's catalogue8 identifies 
three programs: a two-year liberal arts program to "introduce students to various fields of 
knowledge . . . plac[ing] a strong emphasis on learning and communication skills;" a college 
preparatory program "to acclimate international students to American college study;" and an 
international program to "offer customized intensive English language programs." These programs 
do not establish that the petitioning organization's two-year educational institution is distinct or 
uncommon within the higher educational industry. The Petitioner has not established that the 
general philosophy and values underpinning its educational mission are more than general concepts 
favored by many educational institutions or incorporated in their approach to education. 
Based on the minimal information and evidence submitted regarding the petitioning organization's 
mission, it appears more likely than not that a qualified educational administrator may require only a 
basic level of training to gain sufficient familiarity of the petitioning organization's philosophy and 
that knowledge of this philosophy could be readily transferred to other similarly degreed and 
experienced administrators working in the petitioning organization's industry. 
Although the Beneficiary has gained insight into the petitioning organization's philosophy during his 
lengthy tenure at the foreign entity, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's work 
experience while employed as a section 
or general director resulted in knowledge that is distinct, 
noteworthy, or uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in 
the higher educatio,n industry. The Petitioner does not describe how the Beneficiary gained special 
knowledge of its mission through training or special tasks. The Petitioner does not explain how 
other experienced educational administrators in the educational environment would be unable to 
apply and implement the petitioning organizations policies with minimal training or exposure to the 
organization. 
The current statutory and regulatory definitions of "specialized knowledge" do not include a 
requirement that a beneficiary's knowledge be proprietary. Thus, whether the knowledge is 
proprietary or not, a petitioner must still establish that the knowledge utilized in the proposed 
position and possessed by the beneficiary is in fact specific to the petitioning organization, and 
somehow different from that possessed by similarly-employed personnel in the industry. It is 
reasonable to believe that all universities and colleges develop internal tools, methodologies, and 
7 For example, the 
by the 
was established in December 1980 as a 
The Charter of the University calls for 
See https:/ /www. (last visited Oct. 30, 20 17). 
M The Petitioner submits a partial catalogue for the 2016-2017 academic year that does not include a description of 
specific programs or classes. However, the Petitioner's website provides an overview of the proffered programs. See 
https://www. (last visited Oct. 30, 20 17). 
5 
.
Matter of H-T-1-
philosophies. Without a substantive explanation or evidence, the Petitioner has not established that 
the petitioning company's mission is particularly complex or uncommon compared to similar 
educational institutions. The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how the Beneficiary gained 
knowledge specific to only its organization, and has not supported a claim that it would take a 
significant amount of time to train an experienced administrator to perform the duties required of the 
proposed position. 
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 its organization. However, the record lacks probative 
evidence demonstrating that extensive training is required to perform the duties it claims are 
different from that of other administrators, either within or outside of the organization. The job 
requirements for the Beneficiary's previous two positions demonstrate that an experienced 
administrator without specialized knowledge is capable of performing the duties of the petitioning 
organization's positions. While there likely are no 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 professionals in the Petitioner's industry, or that it 
would require up to a full year or longer to acquire the knowledge needed for the position. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special 
knowledge of the company's services and their application in international markets. 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner asserts that during the Beneficiary 's completion of the petitioning organization 's 
educational program and 30-year employment with the petitioning organization , he gained 
"specialized knowledge of the [petitioning organization's] educational mission and philosophy, as 
well as its administrative interrelationships, process and procedures, and its international 
operations." In response to the Director's RFE, the foreign entity noted that a "deep knowledge of 
[the petitioning organization's] origins, institutional history and philosophy are essential for 
upper-level administrators including those serving in the critical liaison positions between our 
primary campus in Japan and its overseas affiliates. " The foreign entity added that "[a]ll upper-level 
.. . administrative employees must possess this ' specialized knowledge ' of our institution ' s 
educational services, management style, community involvement and inter-workings. " 
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. 
.
Matter of H-T-1-
To differentiate the Beneficiary's knowledge from other employees within the petitiOning 
organization, we review the duties of those employees in similar positions, as well as their training, 
education, and length of experience with the petitioning organization's mission. Here, the Petitioner 
does not provide a list of the petitioning organization's upper-level administrative employees, their 
education levels, and work experience. The Petitioner does not describe how this Beneficiary's 
work and responsibilities differ from other employees or how other employees gained their 
knowledge of the petitioning organization. The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is advanced within the petitioning organization's own operations. 
In sum, the record does not 
include sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary's 
combination of professional experience, work assignments, and knowledge of the Petitioner's 
values, philosophies, mission, and methodologies has resulted in his possession of knowledge that is 
distinct or uncommon compared to similarly employed workers in the industry or others within the 
petitioning company or that is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity , and 
understanding in comparison to other workers in the employer's operations . 
While the Beneficiary may be a valuable employee who is well-qualified for the proposed position 
in the United States, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special or advanced 
knowledge. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. As the evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge, we also cannot conclude that he has been employed abroad and would be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity . 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H-T-1- . ID# 673715 (AAO Oct. 31, 2017)