dismissed L-1B Case: Food Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-Y- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 27,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a meat production company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its quality 
assurance/food technology manager under the L-IB nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ IIOI(a)(15)(L). The L-IB 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, that he has been 
employed abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge for at least one year, or that he will 
be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director incorrectly assumed that the Beneficiary possesses 
knowledge that can be easily attained and is commonly held by professionals in the field, and that he 
does not possess specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning organization. The Petitioner 
maintains that the Beneficiary meets all requirements for the requested classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-IB nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving 
specialized knowledge, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. Section IOI(a)(15)(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 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 
Matter of M-Y- LLC 
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(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
An individual L-IB classification petition must be accompanied by evidence that: the beneficiary has 
been employed abroad in a position that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized 
knowledge for at least one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition; the 
beneficiary is coming to work in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and, the beneficiary's prior education, 
training and employment qualifies the beneficiary to perform the intended services in the United States. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary 
acquired special knowledge of the Petitioner's products or production processes that is truly distinct 
or uncommon compared to the knowledge typically possessed by food production industry 
professionals, or knowledge of the company's processes and procedures that is advanced compared 
to other employees within the petitioning organization. 
As noted, the Petitioner maintains that the Director overlooked the Beneficiary's extensive education 
and experience in the meat production and food industry, his role in developing unique products and 
production processes, and the fact that he developed processes and guidelines for safe food 
production for the Greek parent company which the Petitioner now seeks to implement at its U.S. 
subsidiary. The Petitioner further asserts that the Director's decision was based on incorrect 
assumptions. 
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 in a position 
involving specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
A petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition of specialized knowledge. Under the statute, 
a beneficiary is considered 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. 
2 
Matter of M-Y- LLC 
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. 
Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary possesses both special and advanced knowledge, 
based on his academic and professional qualifications, and further gained during his three years of 
employment with its Greek parent company; where he has held the position of quality 
assurance/food technology manager. 
The Petitioner and· its parent company manufacture prepared Greek-style meats including gyros, 
kebabs, and souvlaki, with production facilities located in Greece and New Jersey. 
The Petitioner has offered the Beneficiary the U.S.-based position of quality assurance/food 
technology manager, the same title he currently holds in Greece. 1 The Petitioner stated the 
Beneficiary spends 50% of his time leading the food safety team and is ,responsible for oversight of 
food safety and quality assurance, managed through daily interaction on the plant floor and through 
meetings with the production manager and food technologies. An additional 20% of the 
Beneficiary's time is spent on ensuring that production staffreceives all necessary quality and safety 
training. He allocates 20% of his time to research and development in conjunction with sales, 
customer service, food technologies, and the research and development supervisor, with the 
remaining 10% of his time spent on auditing activities. 
In the United States, the Beneficiary would allocate his time as follows: 40% to "bringing the highly 
specialized methods developed in the Greek [company] relating to food safety while maintaining the 
company's high standards and specifications; 30% to "training senior staff in the company in 
adopting and following the methods required for the systematic and preventative approach to food 
safety and minimizing any exposure of the company's processes from hazards in the production 
process"; and 30% to "research and developing food products and processes by using specific 
patents which the company holds in order to reduce the microbiological exposure to company 
products." · 
A. Special Knowledge 
Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or 
services and its application in international markets, a 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. Knowledge that 1s 
1 
The Petitioner has also referred to the Beneficiary's foreign position as "Director of Quality Assurance." 
3 
.
Matter of M-Y- LLC 
commonly held throughout a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to 
another is not considered specialized. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's special knowledge is based, in part, on academic and 
professional trainin15 and experience he gained over the course of his career prior to joining its parent 
company. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner emphasized that the Beneficiary "is a highly educated 
professional with specialized knowledge in the food technology field with vast experience in the 
private sector." The Petitioner provided evidence that the beneficiary holds a bachelor's degree in 
animal production technology from the in Greece, 
and a master of business administration in human resources management from the 
The Beneficiary also earned an "Intermediate Certificate in Applied Principles," 
and a "Level 4 
A ward in ' both awarded by the 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "amassed significant specialized knowledge and 
experience, while excelling in the field of food technology and animal production," and listed some 
of his professional accomplishments, including participating in the restructuring of the fishery sector 
in and "overseeing the official inspections in all major Greek central 
markets (2007-2009)." It provided a letter from the general manager from the 
a state-owned Greek organization, who states that the Beneficiary 
"within the framework of his authorities and using the subject of his knowledge and academic 
experience ... was the main responsible [sic] for organizing and developing seminars in subjects 
like treating and handling final products and treating procedures by meat trading companies' 
personnel." 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that its parent company recruited the Beneficiary based on the 
specialized education and training the Beneficiary acquired prior to joining the company and asserts 
that the Director incorrectly assumed that his "educational and working experience is easily attained 
and commonplace by professionals in the field." The Petitioner maintains that the "the unique 
combination of his specialized educational background and his specialized knowledge ... made him 
the ideal candidate." 
The Petitioner also states for the first time on appeal that the Beneficiary "directed the largest and 
most important food industry association in Greece, where he led the organization in adopting new 
and cutting edge food safety measures which fundamentally changed this very large organization as 
well as the overall food industry in Greece." The Petitioner states that upon joining the foreign 
2 
The website of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that is a 
management system in which food safety is addressed through the analysis and control of biological, chemical, and 
physical hazards from raw material production, procurement and handling, to manufacturing, distribution and 
consumption of the finished product. See (last visited July 24, 
2017). 
4 
.
Matter of M-Y- LLC 
entity he implemented new food handling and raw material safety measures, as these protocols and 
frameworks were developed by him in his prior position as Managing Director of the largest food 
organization in Greece." The Petitioner explains that the specialized knowledge he brought to the 
company "had atransformative effect." · 
The Petitioner has not adequately supported its new claim that the Beneficiary was the managing 
director of Greece's largest food organization or that he transformed Greece's food production 
industry. It appears that the Petitioner may be referring to the Beneficiary's work with 
However, the letter from does not mention his role as managing director or support the claim 
that he was fundamental to developing current food industry standards in Greece. The Beneficiary's 
resume indicates he was the "commercial supervisor in 19 meat and fish processing companies of 
the but does not state that he was the managing director of 
or any other organization. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, 
and 
credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
Nevertheless, the Beneficiary's resume indicates that he served as a scientific consultant for more 
than 100 companies in the food industry between 2006 to 2013, wrote 45 sc'ientific memoranda and 
reports on matters of hygiene and food safety, has reviewed legislative matters on behalf of food 
production companies, and has served as a trainer on personal hygiene and food safety issues. He 
has extensive experience in the field to complement his academic credentials. 
The question before us, however, is whether the Beneficiary's existing knowledge of meat 
production, food health and safety regulations, and related fields constitutes specialized knowledge 
that is truly distinct or uncommon in comparison to knowledge held by similarly employed 
professionals responsible for food safety, quality assurance, and staff training in the Petitioner's 
highly-regulated industry where all participants are expected to adhere to legislated standards to 
ensure consumer safety. Most professionals hired to manage food safety, quality and handling issues 
in a meat production facility would reasonably require an educational background in animal science 
·or production, as the Petitioner states this degree provides "essential knowledge of the industry of 
meat processing." The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's master's degree in human resources 
management was also based on the food production industry and safety standards, but without a 
transcript, this claim is not sufficient supported. The Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary's educational background equipped h1m with special knowledge that is uncommon 
among similarly employed individuals in the industry. 
Further, the Petitioner has not established that it is unusual for an individual hired as a quality 
assurance manager in a meat processing facility to have additional, post-academic industry training 
or experience. The Petitioner provided evidence that the Beneficiary has two certificates 
related to food manufacturing principles and management, but as noted, the Petitioner operates in a 
highly-regulated industry that must adhere to strict food safety guidelines. As such, we cannot 
conclude that the Beneficiary's industry certifications equate to specialized knowledge. 
In addition, special knowledge must be specific to the petitioning organization's product, service, 
research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. For 
this reason, a given beneficiary's 
-5 
Matter of M-Y- LLC 
prior education, training, and experience alone are typically insufficient to establish that they possess 
specialized knowledge. Here, the Director noted that the Beneficiary began performing the duties of a 
quality assurance/food technology manager immediately after the foreign entity hired him, thus 
suggesting that the job did not require special knowledge specific to the company. Rather, the Director 
found that the Beneficiary's existing knowledge of the industry provided sufficient preparation to carry 
out the duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner objects to this conclusion, noting that when the foreign entity hired the 
Beneficiary "the expectations were that upon him familiarizing himself with the inner workings of the 
company, he would then be able to bring his vast knowledge and work on developing and implementing 
these new protocols." The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "did not start developing the food safety 
protocols and framework until well into his second year of employment." The Petitioner does not 
provide any further description of how the Beneficiary's duties progressed since joining the foreign 
entity. We agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner's statements prior to the denial 
suggested that the Beneficiary had performed the same duties since being hired. 
Regardless, the Petitioner has not explained specific aspects of its products, equipment, or techniques to 
establish tkat oversight of its meat production quality and safety protocols resulted in the Beneficiary 
possessing knowledge that is different from what is generally held by similarly employed workers in the 
industry, or knowledge that could not be transferred to an employee who is already familiar with meat 
production and the regulatory and safety standards imposed on this industry. Simply stating that the 
Greek company has "highly specialized methods ... relating to food safety" is not sufficient to establish 
that the petitioning organization has implemented methods that involve or require specialized 
knowledge. 
As noted, the Petitioner claims on appeal that the Beneficiary himself was instrumental in developing 
Greece's current framework and protocols for food safety in its industry. Even if it had adequately 
supported this claim, the Petitioner indicates that such protbcols and framework have been adopted 
across Greece's food industry and therefore, we cannot conclude that they constitute "special 
knowledge" within that industry. The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary is needed to ensure that 
the same protocols and framework are implemented in its New Jersey factory, but the Petitioner's 
factory is already operational and presumably in compliance with all U.S. regulations applicable to its 
industry. Again, the Petitioner did not identify any aspect of its food safety, handling, quality, hygiene, 
or other standards that differ from those generally found in the meat production industry. 
We agree that the types of duties the Beneficiary performs "are not easily satisfied and performed by an 
individual with basic business experience in the food industry." However, the Petitioner did not 
establish that "basic business experience" is the typical required qualification for a senior position in the 
food safety and handling area of meat production. Rather, it is reasonable to believe that any company 
would seek to hire an employee with an educational and professional background that involved the 
required scientific knowledge, industry training, and experience relevant to this type of business, and 
that such knowledge and experience would be common among professionals working in this sector. 
6 
.
Matter of M-Y- LLC 
The Petitioner also states that no other North American company offers the same Greek meat products, 
but it did not further elaborate on how this product speCialization relates to the Beneficiary's claimed 
specialized knowledge. Without more information, the record does not establish that the food safety 
and production standards in place for these products would be significantly different from those 
applicable to other meat products. 
The Petitioner did, however, address one unique food product developed by its company and stated 
that the Beneficiary contributed significantly to the product's packaging and production process. 
Specifically, the foreign entity had recently launched a stuffed with feta cheese" 
which is sold in "the first recyclable ready-to-cook packaging tray in the market." An unrelated 
company designed the packaging tray and holds the patent for its design. The Petitioner explained 
that the foreign entity purchased a customized automatic machine to produce the product, and that 
the Beneficiary "developed and implemented all procedures in utilizing and incorporating these 
patented products through recipe implementation, packaging design, food safety, packaging safety 
and cooking instructions." The Petitioner stated that it had entered an agreement to sell and 
distribute the product in North America and requires the Beneficiary's specific knowledge and 
experience in working with this product. 
The Petitioner did not mention this specific product, special production equipment, or special 
packaging at the time of filing.. The Petitioner later provided evidence that the Beneficiary had 
approved the specifications of the third-party packaging, but it is unclear what additional work needs 
to be done with respect to this product, or the amount or type of training that would be required for 
the U.S. factory to begin manufacturing the ' product. If the U.S. staff can learn to 
manufacture the product with minimal additional training, that knowledge of this product or its 
production method would not constitute special knowledge. . 
Even though quality assurance and food technology professionals outside the organization do not 
have the Beneficiary's exact experience with the petitioning organization's products, protocols or 
productions methods, the record contains insufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is special. Again, the Petitioner must establish that the position requires this employee to 
have knowledge that is uncommon in the industry and knowledge that could not be readily 
transferred to a similarly employed professional in the Beneficiary's field. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special 
knowledge of the company's products, equipment, and methodologies, and their application in 
international markets. 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
We have also considered whether the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge. 
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 
Matter of M-Y- LLC 
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. As with special knowledge, the 
petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that a beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held 
throughout the particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. 
The Petitioner emphasized that "the members of [the Beneficiary's] department who he supervises 
and leads, do not possess the extensive specialized knowledge which the beneficiary has gained 
through his more than 10 years of education and experience prior to being hired by [the foreign 
entity]." The Petitioner has also stated that the Beneficiary transformed the company by 
implementing new food safety protocols and frameworks that were based ori his previous work in 
the industry. A letter from the foreign entity indicates that the Beneficiary supervises a food safety 
leader and a research and development employee, along with three customer service employees, and 
is responsible for overseeing training and implementation of quality and food safety standards for the 
meat production, technical and warehouse departments overseen by the production manager. The 
Petitioner has not provided an organizational chart for the U.S. position, identified the educational or 
professional qualifications of the U.S. employees, or indicated who is currently responsible for food 
safety and quality assurance standards for its New Jersey plant. 
As discussed above, we found that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that 
knowledge of its products, techniques, and methods related to food safety and quality assurance 
could not be easily imparted to an experienced professional in the Petitioner's industry. Although 
the Petitioner states that it has its own internal "specialized methods," it has not distinguished its 
processes or procedures for food safety and quality assurance from those used throughout its 
industry. Even if we conclude that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of these procedures 
relative to co-workers in lower-level positions, the Petitioner must still establish that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is different from that held by workers in similar positions in the 
Petitioner's industry. Again, given that food handling and safety protocols are regulated and 
implemented industry wide, the Petitioner must establish that its processes and procedures are 
somehow different or uncommon. 
It is clear that the Petitioner considers the Beneficiary to be a valuable and highly productive 
employee who excels at his position, but it has not sufficiently shown that his knowledge is different 
from what is generally held in the Petitioner's industry. 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses special or advanced 
knowledge, we need not address whether the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a position 
involving specialized knowledge or will be employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
8 
Matter of M-Y- LLC 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-Y- LLC, ID# 528699 (AAO July 27, 2017)