dismissed L-1B Case: Food Service

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
- A*--( . M. ' %;.:*&d U. S. Citizenship 
,-2##&g = 
,*JL -- 
and Immigration 
&lv&oI? of pelsoaal privacy 
FILE: WAC 01 15 1 5 1366 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (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 -7' 1 Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
h 
WAC 01 151 51366 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. On 
October 29, 2001, the petitioner filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The AAO 
dismissed the appeal on December 19, 2002. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reopen and 
reconsider. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1 intracompany 
transferee pursuant to 9 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of California that operates fast food 
outlets in the food service industry. The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of the beneficiary's foreign 
employer, located in Pasig City, Philippines. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in a specialized 
knowledge capacity as its corporate financial officer. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary 
has been employed abroad and would be employed in the United States entity in a specialized knowledge 
capacity. The director noted that the petitioner did not establish through probative evidence that the 
beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished by some unusual quality and not 
generally known by practitioners in the alien's field. 
On appeal, counsel contended that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) applied a restrictive standard 
requiring the beneficiary to possess "unique" knowledge when analyzing whether the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. Counsel also claimed that CIS failed to 
consider evidence other than the beneficiary's job description, particularly letters and statements made by 
corporate officers of the foreign and United States entities, submitted in support of the petition. 
The AAO determined that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge or 
that she has been or would be employed in a capacity involving specialized knowledge. The AAO concluded 
that the beneficiary's training and work experience abroad provided her with the knowledge to competently 
perform as an accounting specialist, but that her knowledge could not be considered special or advanced. The 
AAO also noted beyond the decision of the director that the petitioner failed to establish that a qualifying 
relationship exists between the petitioning organization and the beneficiary's foreign employer as required in 
the Act at 5 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). 
Counsel filed the instant motion to reopen and reconsider on January 10,2003. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(2) states, in pertinent part: "A motion to reopen must state the new facts to 
be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(3) states, in pertinent part: 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, 
when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the 
time of the initial decision. 
WAC 01 151 51366 
Page 3 
Counsel has not submitted any new evidence and has not stated any reasons for reconsideration of the AAO 
decision in this matter. On motion, counsel restates portions of the AAO decision and reiterates statements 
made by the foreign and petitioning entities' corporate officers, which had already been provided for the 
record and considered by the AAO on appeal. Counsel does not identify any precedent decisions 
demonstrating that the AAO decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. See 
Q: 103.5(a)(3). The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. Q: 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. Q: 103.5(a)(4) 
states "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." Accordingly, the motion 
will be dismissed, the proceedings will not be reopened, and the previous decisions of the director and the 
AAO will not be disturbed. 
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. $ 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.