dismissed L-1B Case: Electronic Equipment

identfyie- to 
prevent ~w~~ted 
invasion d PZ~W 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. 3000 
1 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: LIN 05 106 5201 6 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 3 2o08 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
And Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L) 
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. 
ministrative Appeals Office 
LIN 05 106 52016 
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 section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Washington corporation, states that it sells 
and se~ces specialized electronic equipment manufactured by its parent company, Icom, Inc., located in Japan. 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of market analyst/special liaison for a three-year 
period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge or that the prospective position requires an individual with specialized knowledge. 
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 asserts that the director 
failed to consider the evidence submitted by the petitioner and implicitly applied a standard for specialized 
knowledge "which has no basis in regulation, case law, or logic." 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 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(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 
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. 8 214.2(1)(3) further 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 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. 
LIN 05 106 52016 
Page 3 
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. 5 1 184(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. fj 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 petition was filed on February 25, 2005. In a letter dated February 18, 2005, the petitioner 
noted that the U.S. company sells, services and modifies specialized electronic communication equipment 
produced by its Japanese parent company, including amateur, marine, land mobile and avionics products. The 
petitioner described the beneficiary's experience with the foreign company as follows: 
[The beneficiary] has been employed by [the foreign entity] in Japan since April 1, 1992. He 
has held increasingly responsible positions, beginning as a factory staff member then serving 
as a sales staff member in the Export Department from 1997 to 2001; as a Senior 
StaffISection Leader in the Sales Support Section of the Export Department from 2001 to 
2003; and as Manager of Market Research in the Strategy PlanningProduct Strategy 
Department from 2003 to present. In his current position, [the beneficiary's] responsibilities 
include researching both technical and commercial aspects of new product concepts on a 
worldwide basis; researching OEM (original equipment manufacturer)/Partnership issues and 
other relevant legal issues; analyzing sales results and market information; and participating 
in the build-up of new product concepts, product road maps and product strategies/policies. 
He also assists product planners in designing work-flow schemes, and provides 
coordination/liaison between the advertising, sales and engineering staff. 
The petitioner further described the specialized knowledge gained by the beneficiary during his assignments 
with the foreign entity: 
[The beneficiq] has gained specialized knowledge of [company] products, services, 
methods of research, analytical techniques, organization, philosophy of management and 
manufacturing strengths that far surpasses the ordinary knowledge of an employee in the field 
of electronics and communication equipment marketing. He has an advanced level of 
expertise and proprietary knowledge regarding [the company's] products which is very 
valuable to the company's competitiveness. 
LIN 05 106 52016 
Page 4 
In addition to his in-depth experience with marketing [the company's] technical products 
internationally, [the beneficiary] has extensive knowledge of [the company's] corporate 
organization that allows him to work between divisions, headquarters and overseas 
subsidiaries to get decisions made quickly ad properly. Since [the company] is a large, 
complex multi-national firm with large lines of products in separate specialty fields, the 
ability to develop support for new and/or nontraditional products can be a delicate political 
issue within the established corporate organization. [The beneficiary] has demonstrated he 
possesses the knowledge to work successfully between potentially conflicting [company] 
departments. This level of knowledge of the organization not only takes years to develop, but 
is extremely valuable in improving our international competitiveness since decisions can be 
made much faster. An ordinary individual with knowledge of marketing but no in-depth 
knowledge of [the company] would not be effective in overcoming institutional hurdles. This 
kind of knowledge can be gained only through extensive prior experience with the company. 
Finally, the petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed U.S. position as follows: 
In this position, [the beneficiary] will use the extensive knowledge gained through his 
experience with [the company] in Japan to conduct market analysis to identify target markets; 
conduct competitive analysis to understand the competitors' marketing and product strategies; 
and participate in product planning, purchase decisions and market strategies. His duties will 
include identifying [the company's] customers' needs and wants through market research and 
analysis, providing and interpreting data to assist in product planning and positioning. He will 
also work with division managers to develop marketing strategies for each division, including 
needs analysis, identifying target markets and measuring results of strategies implemented. 
[The beneficiary] will also work with the Product Division Manager to execute product 
strategies and all aspects of the selling process. 
In addition, [the beneficiary] will liaise between [the petitioner] and [the foreign entity] and 
will be responsible for accurate communication to and from [the foreign entity] regarding 
OEM, new business and new product requests. He will assist [the petitioner's] Management 
Team and [the foreign entity] in improving the interchange of ideas between [the petitioner] 
and [the foreign entity]. This will differentiate [the petitioner] from the competition and set 
the highest standards in the communications industry. 
The petitioner submitted the foreign entity's annual report and a product brochure for its communications 
receivers in support of the petition. 
The director issued a request for evidence on March 31, 2005, in which the petitioner was advised that the 
evidence submitted with the initial petition was inadequate to establish that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge or that he will be employed in a position involving specialized knowledge. The 
director observed that many of the duties described in the petition "appear to be general market research and 
analysis functions routinely performed throughout the industry." The director further noted that the evidence 
did not establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished by some 
unusual quality that is not generally known by practitioners who are similarly educated and/or engaged 
within the industry. Accordingly the director instructed the petitioner as follows: 
LIN 05 106 52016 
Page 5 
Due to the wide variety of duties, the Service is unable to determine the duties that the 
beneficiary has and will perform on a daily basis. Therefore, please submit a complete, 
detailed description of the duties to be performed by the beneficiary in the United States and 
the percentage of time the beneficiary will spend performing each duty. In addition, please 
submit a complete, detailed description of the alien's current duties for the employer abroad. . 
. . The description should detail the routine, day-to-day tasks performed by the beneficiary 
within the foreign entity as well as the percentage of weekly hours expended in the 
performance of each tasks that is identified. 
* * * 
Please note that if the petitioner contends that the beneficiary possesses an advanced or 
unique knowledge of the processes, procedures, research, equipment, techniques, 
management, and /or other interests of the company (including its products/services, then 
evidence must be submitted to describe and distinguish that knowledge from the elementary 
or basic knowledge possessed by others who are similarly employed within the same 
occupation/industry (and who regularly utilize similar system, programs, products, processes 
and/or procedures). In addition, the evidence submitted must establish that the beneficiary's 
duties abroad for the qualifying organization AND the alien's proposed duties in the United 
States require a person with "specialized knowledge." 
Furthermore, if the beneficiary attended any company-specific vocational, technical, and/or 
professional development courses which are related to the company's equipment, products, 
processes and/or procedures, please provide additional documentation which supports that 
claim, i.e., diplomas, course completion certifications, etc. The documentation that you 
provide must identify the schooVcourse and the alien by name, identify the inclusive period 
of study, and specify in detail the course content. 
If the beneficiary acquired his specialized knowledge only through practical employment 
experience, please describe in detail how the beneficiary's training and/or work experience 
differs from the training and experience an individual would receive whom is similarly 
engaged within the industry. 
In a response dated April 14, 2005, the petitioner asserted that contrary to the director's suggestion, the duties 
of the offered position "are not 'general market research and analysis functions."' The petitioner stated that it 
is a "unique position" involving special liaison between the petitioner and its parent company, and noted that 
the position had been approved four times for previous L-1B beneficiaries. The petitioner further explained as 
follows: 
The reason that an individual has been specifically selected from [the foreign entity] to 
function as the liaison is that only an individual who has both advanced knowledge and the 
personal understanding of and credibility with the [foreign entity's] management team in 
Japan is going to be able to effectively influence [the company's] product development, 
market strategy for products, services and prices, and responsiveness to our North American 
customers. This position is far more than doing market research in an industry. The individual 
is responsible for not just conducting market research but also for coordinating the company's 
LIN 05 106 5201 6 
Page 6 
response to the analysis. Seventy to eight percent of the duties require the ability to 
coordinate the Japanese parent and U.S. responses effectively . . . . The majority of the time 
will focus on four basic functions: handling new product and business requests fiom 
customers, OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) partners and the marketing division in 
the U.S. and then developing the requests by filing the requests, identifying the interested 
individuals in Japan, coordinating the meetings and following up through the process; acting 
as liaison between [the petitioner] and [the foreign entity], including responsibility for 
drafting communications, translating key documents, and determining the proper channels 
within the company to solve issues which arise with new OEM partners and bringing the 
issues to timely conclusions; analyzing and matching market demand with [the foreign 
entity's] technical and market resources, priorities and strategic plans; and identifying market 
needs and working with [the foreign entity] in product development and positioning. In each 
case, the individual in this position will assist [the petitioner's] Management Team and [the 
foreign entity] in improving the interchange of ideas between [the petitioner] and [the foreign 
entity]. 
These duties are such that an individual who is knowledgeable in market analysis would still 
be unable to fulfill any of the duties that require advanced knowledge of [the foreign entity's] 
management, operations, strategic plans, product development processes and internal politics. 
The coordination~liaison duties require an individual who has worked in key departments in 
the parent company. Without knowing the management of each department, the relationships 
between the departments, the history of the products within the organization, and the culture 
of the company, it would not be possible to quickly and effectively translate the North 
American customers' needs into product development and marketing programs. Without 
specific experience with developing OEM relationships for [the foreign entity], and 
individual would lack the basis for any judgment to determine which prospective partners 
were good technical fits for specific individual products, which were inconsistent with [the 
company's] own plans for new products, and what terms would be best for the partnerships. 
Lacking that judgment, it would not be possible to advocate effectively for taking risks in 
new relationships. 
These duties are more complex because of the range and technical sophistication of our 
products. [The petitioner] sells, services and modifies highly specialized electronic 
communication equipment produced by our Japanese parent company, including amateur, 
marine, land mobile and avionics products. [the petitioner] manages the sales and marketing 
in the United States, Mexico and parts of South America. We purchase 95% of our electronic 
communication equipment for [the parent company] in Japan for sale in the United States. 
We currently employ 96 personnel in the United States. . . We have many marketing and 
marketing analysts on staff. We have only a single special liaison person. 
The petitioner further emphasized that the beneficiary has been employed by the parent company for more 
than 13 years, and has acquired experience with production, engineering, sales, new products, OEM and 
market research. The petitioner further stated that due to the beneficiary's experience in all of these areas, 
"the depth and breadth of his experience is more advanced than typical for the ordinary in our company." The 
petitioner further described the beneficiary's current duties as follows: 
LIN05 106 52016 
Page 7 
In his current position, [the beneficiary's] responsibilities include researching both the 
technical and commercial aspects of new product concepts on a worldwide basis; researching 
OEM Partnership issues and other relevant legal issues; analyzing sales results and market 
information; and participating in the build-up of new product concepts, product road maps 
and product strategies/policies. He also assists product planners in designing work-flow 
schemes, and provides coordination/liaison between the advertising, sales and engineering 
staff. In each of these positions, he has gained specific working knowledge in the way 
decisions are made. He has gained judgment from progressively responsible positions. His 
special technical knowledge of [the petitioner's] products, services, methods of research, 
analytical techniques, and OEM partnerships as well as his advanced personal knowledge of 
the key managers in the organization, philosophy of management and manufacturing 
strengths far surpasses the ordinary knowledge of an employee in the field of electronics and 
communication equipment marketing. [The beneficiary] has an advanced level of expertise 
and proprietary knowledge regarding [the petitioner's] products, personnel, corporate 
organization and processes which is very valuable to the company's competitiveness. 
The petitioner fixther emphasized that the beneficiary "has special in-depth experience with [the petitioner's] 
corporate organization that allows him to work between divisions, headquarters and overseas subsidiaries to 
get decisions made quickly and properly." The petitioner explained that "the ability to develop support for 
new andlor nontraditional products can be a delicate political issue within the established organization," and 
stated that the beneficiary "possesses the knowledge to work successfully between potentially conflicting 
[company] departments." The petitioner concluded that this level of knowledge of the organization takes 
years to develop such that an ordinary marketing specialist with no in-depth knowledge of the company 
would be unable to overcome "institutional hurdles." 
The petitioner also submitted a position description for the proposed role which includes the percentage of 
time the beneficiary will spend on each of his duties as a market analystlspecial liaison: 
10% - Identify [the petitioner's] customer needs and wants through market research and 
analysis providing data to assist in [the foreign entity's] product planning and positioning. 
Work with division managers to develop marketing strategies for each division, including 
needs analysis, identifying target markets, and measuring results of strategies implemented. 
10% - Conduct competitive analysis to understand our competitors' marketing and product 
strategies. 
25% - Handle new product requests including filing, coordinating meetings and 
communication with Japan. 
20% - Liaison between [the petitioner] and [the foreign entity] responsible for effective and 
accurate communication/translation to and from [the foreign entity] with the appropriate 
managers. 
25% - analyze and match market demand and [the foreign entity's] resources, priorities and 
strategic plans. 
LIN 05 106 52016 
Page 8 
10% - Identify market trends and gather saleslmarketing information to assist the company in 
achieving 100% of sales goals. 
According to the job description, the position requires a high level of fluency in oral and written Japanese and 
English, including experience translating, understanding of Japanese culture and business etiquette, at least 
five years of experience in international sales distribution, the ability to solve problems related to market and 
pricing analysis, and knowledge of the group's "management, product design and operation." The description 
indicates that that the job requires "use of good judgment, understanding of international business issues and 
proper Japanese protocol." 
The petitioner submitted copies of five Forms 1-797 Approval Notices granting five different beneficiaries L- 
1 B status to work for the petitioning company, dating back to 1993. 
The director denied the petition on April 20, 2005, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he will be employed in a capacity involving specialized 
knowledge. The director found insufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is 
uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished by some unusual quality that is not generally known by practitioners 
who are similarly employed in the beneficiary's field, or that the position in the United States requires a 
person with "specialized knowledge" as that term is defined in the regulations. 
The director acknowledged the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary's knowledge was gained over thirteen 
years of work experience with the foreign entity, and is more advanced in depth and breadth compared to an 
ordinary employee within the company. However, the director noted that the petitioner provided no 
independent corroborating evidence that sets the beneficiary apart from all other employees who have gained 
similar expertise working for the foreign entity for a similar duration of time. 
Finally, the director acknowledged the petitioner's submission of Form 1-797 Approval Notices for previous 
L-1B petitions filed by the U.S. company, but noted that: (1) the petitioner did not provide evidence that the 
facts of the referenced cases are analogous to the facts and circumstances of the instant case; and (2) 
notwithstanding the prior approvals, USCIS is not required to approve petitions were eligibility has not been 
demonstrated. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director's decision "defies simple common sense," and "implicitly applies a 
standard for specialized knowledge which has no basis in regulation, case law, or logic." Counsel alleges that 
it was "absurd" for the director to conclude that the beneficiary's 13 years of experience with the foreign 
entity did not give a level of knowledge beyond what is commonly known in his field, noting that he was 
chosen for the offered position precisely because of his experience with the foreign entity, and that he 
performs duties beyond those typically performed by a "skilled worker." 
Counsel explains that the U.S. company is primarily a sales and marketing company, which needs to be able 
to effectively and quickly adapt its parent company's products and strategies to adapt to U.S. customer 
demands. Counsel notes that "the petitioner's market analysis must be translated into effective action from the 
larger and more complex parent company," and states that "the politics of decision making in any large 
organization are complex and specific to that organization." 
LIN 05 106 52016 
Page 9 
Counsel further emphasizes that while the U.S. company has a large and effective marketing and market 
analysis staff, it maintains a single market analystlspecial liaison person. Counsel again states that the duties 
of the offered position are unique and do not comprise "general market research and analysis functions." 
Counsel claims that the position has been approved four previous times for L-1B applicants, all of who were 
key individuals "with the experience and stature in [the foreign entity] to make the function work." 
Counsel further explains the need for a specialized knowledge worker to fill the proffered position: 
Seventy to eight percent of the daily duties of the position . . . require this specialized and 
advanced level of knowledge of [the foreign entity]. Only an individual who has both the 
advanced knowledge and the personal understanding of and credibility with management in 
Japan is going to be able to effectively influence [the foreign entity's] decision-making in 
product development quickly enough to capitalize on quick changing market opportunities. 
Merely sending a report is not effective. Having the personal knowledge of who the decision 
makers are and who is likely to support and oppose the proposal so that an effective strategy 
can be mapped out is crucial. The Special Liaison can frame the market analysis for the 
audience (managers he personally knows and understands). He can coordinate the meetings. 
He is aware of the other factors which may influence or compete with these proposals. He can 
also work with the U.S. division managers in terms of what the parent company realistically 
can and will do. This is essential for having a realistic market strategy for products, services, 
prices and responsiveness to North American customers. 
Each of the four basic functions of this position requires this specialized knowledge to 
perform effectively: handling new product and business requests from customers, OEM 
partners and the marketing division in the U.S. and then developing the requests by filing the 
requests, identifying the key interested individuals in Japan, coordinating the meetings and 
following up through the process; acting as liaison between [the petitioner] and [the foreign 
entity] with responsibility for drafting communications, translating key documents and 
determining the proper channels within the company to solve arising issues including new 
OEM partners in a timely- fashion; analyzing and matching market demand with [the foreign 
entity's] technical and market resources, priorities and strategic plans; and identifying market 
needs and working with [the foreign entity] in product development and positioning. 
Counsel fkrther states that the beneficiary's "advanced knowledge makes the company more competitive 
internationally. The specialized knowledge required in this position is the reason that new products and 
adjustments in strategy are made more quickly and effectively between [the petitioner] and [the foreign 
entity]." Counsel concludes that "the position requires specialized knowledge of [the foreign entity's] 
management and internal processes as well as an advanced level of knowledge of its products, OEM 
practices, product development priorities and budgets and markets." 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. The petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge as defined at 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(1)(l)(ii)(D) and that the beneficiary has been 
or will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
LIN 05 106 5201 6 
Page 10 
In examining the specialized knowledge capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties and the weight of the evidence supporting any asserted specialized knowledge. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 2 14.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a detailed description of the beneficiary's current and 
proposed duties sufficient to establish that they involve 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. 1971)). 
1 
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 skills 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 carry out a key process or function which is important or essential to the business' 
operation. 
Id. at 53. 
In Matter of Penner, the Commissioner discussed the legislative intent behind the creation of the specialized 
knowledge category. 18 I&N Dec. 49 (Comm. 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 former 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. 91-851, 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. 
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(1), 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, the cited cases, as well as Matter of Penner, remain useful guidance concerning the 
intended scope of the "specialized knowledge" L-1B classification. 
LIN 0.5 106 52016 
Page 11 
Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. Cornrn., Immigration Act of 1970: Hearings on H.R. 445, 91 st Cong. 210, 21 8, 
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. The Commissioner emphasized that the specialized knowledge worker classification was not 
intended for "all employees with any level of specialized knowledge." Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 
53. Or, as noted in Matter of Colley, "[mlost employees today are specialists and have been trained and 
given specialized knowledge. However, in view of the House Report, it can not be concluded that all 
employees with specialized knowledge or performing highly techmcal duties are eligible for classification 
as intracompany transferees." 18 I&N Dec. at 119. According to Matter of Penner, "[s]uch a conclusion 
would permit extremely large numbers of persons to qualify for the 'L-1' visa" rather than the "key 
personnel" that Congress specifically intended. 18 I&N Dec. at 53; see also, 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 
15 (concluding that Congress did not intend for the specialized knowledge capacity to extend to all 
employees with specialized knowledge, but rather to "key personnel" and "executives.") 
Thus, based on the intent of Congress in its creation of the of the L-1B visa category, as discussed in Matter 
of Penner, even showing that a beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge does not necessarily establish 
eligibility for the L-1B intracompany transferee classification. 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. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). 
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 11 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 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 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. 
As a preliminary matter, the AAO acknowledges that the petitioner has established that successful 
performance of the duties of the market analystlspecial liaison position does require the services of an 
individual with prior experience with the petitioner's foreign parent company. The AAO is satisfied that the 
position requires a degree of familiarity with the foreign entity that would not be readily available in the 
general labor market, or, specifically, among market research professionals who had worked for similar 
companies in the industry. However, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge, that he has been employed in a position requiring specialized knowledge with the 
foreign entity, or that the knowledge required for the U.S. position rises to the level of "specialized 
knowledge." 
LIN 05 106 52016 
Page 12 
Here, the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary possesses specialized is undermined by its failure to 
adequately describe and document the beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge and his experience with 
the foreign entity. The petitioner claims that the beneficiary has "special knowledge" of the company's 
"products, services, methods of research, analytical techniques, organization, philosophy of management and 
manufacturing strengths," gained over 13 years of employment with the foreign entity. However, the 
petitioner failed to describe the beneficiary's work experience in any detail nor did it explain how such work 
experience differentiates his knowledge from that held by other similarly employed workers in the industry 
and within the foreign company. The petitioner provided no descriptions of the beneficiary's duties in his 
previous positions as a "factory staff member," "sales staff member," or "senior stafflsection leader, sales 
support section," which he held from 1992 until 2003. It cannot be concluded that such experience imbued 
the beneficiary with his claimed "advanced level of expertise and proprietary knowledge" regarding the 
company's products, or his "in-depth experience with marketing [the petitioner's] products internationally." 
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., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 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. While the petitioner provided a brief description of the 
beneficiary's current duties abroad as a manager of market research in the foreign entity's product strategy 
department, the description does not mention the application of any specialized or advanced body of knowledge 
which would distinguish the beneficiary's role fiom that of other market research professionals employed by the 
foreign entity. 
When asked to explain in detail how the beneficiary acquired his claimed specialized knowledge and to describe 
how the beneficiary's work experience differs fiom that of similarly-employed workers, the petitioner explained 
that the beneficiary is "a veteran of the parent company whose technical skills and level of knowledge of the 
company were concentrated in those aspects most critical to the current challenges of the company." The 
petitioner also emphasized the beneficiary's "13+ years in the company in strategically important divisions," and 
his "experience and stature" within the foreign entity. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary worked in 
"production, engineering, sales, new products, OEM and market research," and noted "the depth and breadth of 
his experience is more advanced than typical for the ordinary employee in our company." This explanation is 
written in broad and conclusory terms and offered little insight into exactly what the beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge is or how he gained it during his employment with the foreign entity. The petitioner did not describe 
the beneficiary's "technical skills" or identify what aspect of his experience is so critical to the company. Going on 
record without documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 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 implies that merely working for the foreign entity for a significant length of time in 
progressively responsible positions is sufficient to bestow "special knowledge" or an "advanced level of 
knowledge." While it 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." The petitioner's expansive 
interpretation of the specialized knowledge provision is untenable, as it would allow virtually any experienced 
employee to enter the United States as a specialized knowledge worker. The fact that the beneficiary was 
LIN 05 106 5201 6 
Page 13 
chosen for transfer to the United States, without more, does not establish that his knowledge of the company's 
products or processes is advanced compared to the knowledge possessed by others within the company. 
Furthermore, the petitioner provided no information regarding what type of knowledge or experience is "typical" 
for a market research professional in the company. While the beneficiary's knowledge may be advanced 
compared to some workers in the company, it is reasonable to compare him specifically to other workers within 
his own occupation in evaluating whether his knowledge is truly specialized or whether it can be considered 
"advanced compared to the knowledge possessed by other employees of the company. The petitioner offered no 
evidence or explanation that would differentiate the beneficiary fiom any other marketing professionals in the 
foreign entity. By itself, work experience and knowledge of a firm's technically complex products will not 
equal "special knowledge." See Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 53. 
Ln addition to his claimed advanced knowledge of the foreign entity's products and market research 
techniques, the petitioner emphasizes that the beneficiary's specialized knowledge includes his knowledge of 
the management of the foreign entity's departments, the relationships between departments, the culture of the 
company, "specific working knowledge of the way decisions are made," and "advanced personal knowledge 
of the key managers in the organization." However, the petitioner once again failed to establish how the 
beneficiary's knowledge of these intangible factors is advanced compared to other similarly employed 
workers in the foreign entity. The implication of the argument is that that any similarly-employed worker 
within the foreign entity's "large complex multinational fm" would be considered by the petitioner to have 
"specialized knowledge" in that such employees would normally be well-versed in the company's culture, 
policies, processes and management. However, mere familiarity with an organization's product or service, or, 
knowledge of the organization's culture, management personnel and internal politics, does not constitute 
specialized knowledge under section 21 4(c)(2)(B) of the Act. 
The AAO notes that the only supporting documentary evidence submitted in support of the petitioner's claims 
regarding the beneficiary's specialized knowledge are product brochures and the above-referenced letters 
from the petitioner and counsel. Despite multiple opportunities, in every instance where the petitioner 
attempted to distinguish the beneficiary as having specialized knowledge, the petitioner failed to submit any 
documentary evidence that would allow the AAO to evaluate the claim. On appeal, counsel essentially re- 
states the unsupported assertions made in response to the director's request for evidence. 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. Without documentary evidence to support the 
claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported 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). 
Based upon the lack of supporting evidence related to the beneficiary and his employment experience abroad, the 
AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or has been employed in a position 
involving specialized knowledge with the foreign entity. 
As explained above, the record does not distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge as more advanced than the 
knowledge possessed by other similarly experienced persons employed by the petitioner's parent company. 
There is no indication that the beneficiary has knowledge that exceeds that of any marketing specialist 
employed by the foreign entity, or that he has received special training in the company's methodologies or 
LIN 05 106 52016 
Page 14 
processes which would separate him from any other persons employed with the petitioner's organization. 
The legislative history of the term "specialized knowledge" provides ample support for a narrow 
interpretation of the term. In the present matter, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
should be considered a member of the "narrowly drawn" class of individuals possessing specialized 
knowledge. See 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, supra at 16. Based on the evidence presented, it is concluded 
that the beneficiary has not been employed abroad, and would not be employed in the United States, in a 
capacity involving specialized knowledge. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
The AAO acknowledges the petitioner's assertion that several individuals have previously obtained L-1B 
nonimmigrant classification in order to serve in the U.S.-based position of market analyst/special liaison. The 
record of proceeding does not contain copies of the visa petitions that the petitioner claims were previously 
approved for the same position. It must be emphasized that that each petition filing is a separate proceeding 
with a separate record. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(d). In making a determination of statutory eligibility, CIS is 
limited to the information contained in that individual record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(l6)(ii). 
Despite any number of previously approved petitions, CIS does not have any authority to confer an 
immigration benefit when the petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof in a subsequent petition. See section 
291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. If the previous nonimmigrant petitions filed by the petitioning company 
were approved based on the same unsupported assertions that are contained in the current record, the 
approvals would constitute material and gross error on the part of the director. 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 
2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
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. Here, that burden has not been met. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.