dismissed L-1B Case: Food Service

identilying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personab w-iwacv 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 065 55565 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
JUN 1 '1 ?nos 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
D 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 065 55565 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimrnigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
According to the evidence contained in the record, the petitioner was incorporated November 22, 2002, and 
claims to be a Middle Eastern ethnic svecialtv food chain and restaurant. The petitioner claims to be an 
affiliatelocated in Australia. It seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the 
United States as a head baker of ethnic specialties for one year, at an annual salary of $35,000.00. The 
director determined that the evidence submitted by the petitioner was not sufficient to establish that the 
beneficiary had been employed or would be employed in a capacity that involves specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's decision and states that the evidence submitted is sufficient to 
show that the beneficiary has been and will be employed in a capacity that involves specialized knowledge. 
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. 5 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. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii) states, in part: 
Intracompany transferee means an alien who, within three years preceding the time of his or her 
application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad continuously for one 
year by a fum or corporation or other legal entity or parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary 
thereof, and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to render his or her 
services to a branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof in a capacity 
that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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 himlher to perform the intended 
WAC 03 065 55565 
Page 3 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(vi) states that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is coming to 
the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity to open or to be employed in a new office in the United 
States, the petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
B) The business entity in the United States is or will be a qualifying organization as defined 
in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; and 
C) The petitioner has the financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence 
doing business in the United States. 
The issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has established that the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge, and has been and will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184 (c)(2)(B), provides: 
For purposes of section 10l(a)(l5)(L)[of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1101 (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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines "specialized knowledge": 
Specialized knowledge means special knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning 
organization's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests 
and its application in intemational markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in 
the organization's processes and procedures. 
In a letter of support, dated November 8, 2002, the petitioner initially described the beneficiary's past and 
proposed duties as: 
1. Overseeing all bread-baking operations of the company, including chefs, cooks and support 
personnel; developing and implementing standardized operational procedures to establish and 
maintain quality control; 
(including Turkish bread, pide (pita) bread, pizza bread) used in 
Mixing ingredients to form dough or batter by hand or using a 
thermostatic controls to regulate oven temperatures; preparing the 
- - 
specialty fillings; cutting and shaping the right amounts of dough; cooking and determining 
when the breads are done in accordance with ethnic specialty techniques; 
3. Coordinating activities of bread-baking workers; 
WAC 03 065 55565 
Page 4 
4. Determining, planning, and monitoring production schedule and daily requirements to 
determine variety and quantity of goods to bake; 
5. Maintaining sufficient inventory in accordance with menu necessities and budgetary 
constraints; 
6. Maintaining production records to ensure for inventory is up to date [sic]; 
7. Being involved in hiring, and firing decisions for new and current bread-makers; [and] 
8. Training newly hired bread-makers. 
The petitioner stated that the by the foreign entity as "head bread maker" 
since June of 2001, and that prior to that mployed the beneficiary as bread maker, and at 
other restaurant businesses the beneficiary was employed as a baker. 
As evidence, the petitioner submitted an employment verification letter from 
September 17, 2002, in which it is stated that the Bakehouse employed the bene 
from December 1999 to May 31, 2001. It is also stated in the letter that the beneficiary gained extensive 
experience while at the bakery in preparing and baking various types of breads, sweets, and cakes. 
In response to the director's request for evidence on the subject, the petitioner submitted a copy of the foreign 
entity's and U.S. entity's organizational chart. The foreign entity's organizational chart demonstrated that the 
beneficiary was designated supervisor of bread products and bakery, and had two bread makers under his 
direction. The U.S. entity's organizational chart demonstrated that the beneficiary's position would be that of 
head baker, and that three bakersfbread makers would be under his supervision. The petitioner stated that no 
other U.S. entity employee performed the beneficiary's proposed duties. The petitioner also stated that the 
beneficiary has and will perform duties that are unique and different from those of other company workers in 
the United States and abroad in that his position as "Head Baker-Ethnic Specialties" is similar to that 
described in DOT Code 313.361-030 as Cook, Specialty, and Foreign Food. The petitioner submitted a copy 
of the relevant DOT Code. The petitioner further stated, 
As a Foreign Food Chef, [the beneficiary] is required to have the special skills, training and 
expertise in baking breads and savory pastries specific to the Turkish and Middle Eastern 
cuisine served at breads and pastries 
involved, includin must be thorough.. .. 
ust also be an expert in the special fire ovens 
gh used for the various items, the proper - - 
procedures for making and incorporating the fillings and specialty ingredients, and various 
cooking methods, times, etc. He is also the specialist who trains and manages the apprentices 
and assistants in the everyday preparation of the products. These duties are unique from 
those of other workers employed by the petitioner as we have no other employees with the 
level, noted above, of skill and experience as [the beneficiary]. In addition, they are unique 
from those of other workers employed by other U.S. employers in this type of position 
(ChefIBaker) as the special skills, training and expertise in baking breads and savory pastries 
WAC 03 065 55565 
Page 5 
required are specific to Turkish and Middle Eastern cuisines; these are rarely taught in 
culinary schools in the United States at the present time. 
In response to the director's request for further evidence, the petitioner stated: 
As evidenced from [the beneficiary's] current duties, [he] has had extensive experience in the 
baking of the specialty breads and pastries at the core of our restaurants offerings as well as 
experience in the training and managing of apprentices and assistant bakers. In addition to 
tralian affiliate, [the beneficiary] also has served as Bread Maker at 
ther restaurant businesses as Baker . . .. Therefore, his training and 
others employed by the company in that [the beneficiary] has skills 
and experience none of the other employees possess, including an extensive background in 
bread production, bread making and preparation as well as training and management of 
apprentice bakers. 
The petitioner submitted a one-page description of a baker's training course proposed for the U.S. entity. The 
petitioner asserted that the impact would be detrimental if the petitioner is unable to obtain the beneficiary's 
services. The petitioner asserted that it was presently only selling a limited amount of its baked goods. The 
petitioner further asserted that a vital aspect and central component of its business is the large scale 
production and sale of bread, and that the beneficiary's services are needed to effectuate this expansion. 
The director subsequently denied the petition stating that there was insufficient evidence to show that the 
beneficiary's experience with the foreign entity or that which was proposed by the petitioner constituted 
specialized knowledge. The director noted that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) does not 
generally regard cooks, chefs, and bakers as possessing specialized knowledge, because recipes and cooking 
techniques can generally be learned through a very brief exposure. The director also noted that the other 
duties listed as being performed by the beneficiary were administrative in nature and did not require 
specialized knowledge. The director stated: "The record does not establish that the beneficiary has unusual, 
advanced, or specialized knowledge of the petitioning organization that would be gained only by the 
completion of substantial or extensive specialized training, education, or experience directly related to the 
duties of the proffered position." The director also stated that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the 
foreign entity's food preparation techniques were so unique and out of the ordinary that their implementation 
required specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's decision and asserts that the director's denial was based upon 
an "erroneous interpretation of facts." Counsel asserts that the beneficiary possesses knowledge that is 
valuable to the petitioner's competitiveness in that he is required to have the special skills, training and 
expertise in baking breads and pastries specific to Turkish and Middle Eastern cuisine, and that his knowledge 
in bread making and production must be thorough. Counsel also asserts that the beneficiary is qualified to 
contribute to the United States employer's knowledge of foreign operating conditions as a result of special 
knowledge not generally found in the industry in that he is an expert in the baking of Middle Eastern breads 
and pastries, the operation of special fire ovens, and the training and management of apprentices and 
assistants in the preparation of its products. Counsel further asserts that the beneficiary has been utilized 
abroad in a capacity involving significant assignments, which have enhanced the foreign entity's productivity, 
competitiveness, image, or financial position in that he has been responsible for overseeing all bread making 
and production involved in a $4 million dollar enterprise. Counsel contends that the beneficiary's keen 
understanding and experience of the foreign entity's operations and management will be instrumental in 
WAC 03 065 55565 
Page 6 
replicating the foreign entity's success in the United States. Counsel further contends the foreign entity's 
Turkish bread, based upon a classic baking style developed approximately 10 years ago, has catapulted in the 
Turkish market. Counsel claims that the beneficiary possesses knowledge of the foreign entity's products and 
processes that cannot be easily transferred or taught to another individual in that at least 7-8 years, up to and 
including 12 years of preparation are required to be a cook, specialty, foreign food, and pastry chef. (DOT 
Code sections 313.361.030 and 315.131.014). As evidence on appeal, the petitioner submitted copies of the 
DOT Code sections and a copy of the Occupational Outlook Handbook section describing Chefs, Cooks, and 
Food Preparation Workers. 
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 I1 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. Here, the petitioner has indicated that the beneficiary has been and will be responsible for 
overseeing the company's baking department in that he will bake bread and specialty pastries and will train 
and supervise apprentice and baker's assistants. As the petitioner indicates that anyone with experience 
baking specialty breads and pastries possesses "special knowledge" or an "advanced level of knowledge," the 
AAO must conclude that, while it may be correct to say that the beneficiary is a skilled employee, this fact 
alone is not enough to bring the beneficiary to the level of "key personnel." 
Counsel's interpretation of the specialized knowledge provision would allow virtually any skilled or 
experienced employee to enter the United States as a specialized knowledge worker. 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. Subcomm. No. 1 
of the Jud. Comm., Immigration Act of 1970: Hearings on H.R. 445, 91" Cong. 210, 218, 223, 240, 248 
(November 12, 1969)). Reviewing the congressional record, the Commissioner concluded that an expansive 
reading of the specialized knowledge provision, such that it would include skilled workers and technicians, is 
not warranted. For the same reasoning, the AAO cannot accept the proposition that any skilled worker is 
necessarily a specialized knowledge worker. 
WAC 03 065 55565 
Page 7 
Moreover, 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). The decision noted that the 1970 House 
Report, H.R. No. 91-851, stated that the number of admissions under the L-1 classification "will not be large" 
and that "[tlhe class of persons eligible for such nonimmigrant visas is narrowly drawn and will be carefully 
regulated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service." Id. at 51. The decision further noted that the House 
Report 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, id. at 
50 (citing H.R. Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. Comm., Immigration Act of 1970: Hearings on H.R. 445, 
91" Cong. 210,218,223,240,248 (November 12, 1969)). 
In accordance with the statutory definition of specialized knowledge, a beneficiary must possess "special" 
knowledge of the petitioner's product and its application in international markets, or an "advanced level" of 
knowledge of the petitioner's processes and procedures. Here, the beneficiary possesses the skill required to work 
as a baker, not an advanced level of knowledge of the petitioner's processes and procedures. In the instant matter, 
the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been or 
would be employed in a position requiring specialized knowledge. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.