dismissed L-1B Case: Health And Wellness

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8831516 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 14, 2020 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner , describing itself as an owner and operator of health spas , seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as an "ayurvedic panchakarma technician " in the United States under the L-lB 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L) , 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(L). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity or that she 
would be employed in the United States in this asserted capacity. The Petitioner later filed motion to 
reopen and a motion reconsider and the Director affirmed her previous denial of the petition . The 
Petitioner then filed an appeal which we dismissed. The matter is now before us again on a motion to 
reopen and motion to reconsider. 
On appeal , the Petitioner contends we did not consider the preponderance of the evidence and asserts 
the submitted evidence establishes that the Beneficiary was one of only two employees in the 
company 's worldwide organization who received "in depth and extensive training " in its proprietary 
health management treatments and programs. 
Upon review , we will dismiss the motion to reopen and the motion reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration , a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as, 
for instance, submission of a properly completed Form I-290B , Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the 
correct fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion . 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(l) . 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (I) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that we based our decision on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision . We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In order to meet the requirements of a motion to reopen the Petitioner must have submit new facts 
supported by affidavits or documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). However, in support of this 
motion, the Petitioner only reiterates contentions provided in support of the previous appeal and 
resubmits documentary evidence already provided on the record. Therefore, the Petitioner has 
submitted new facts supported by affidavits or documentary evidence to meet the requirements of a 
motion to reopen. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
With respect to the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner largely reiterates assertions it provided in 
support of the previous appeal. The issue before us is whether our previous decision to dismiss the 
Petitioner's appeal was a correct application of law or policy based on the evidence on the record at 
the time of that decision. 
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, 8 U.S.C. § 1184( c )(2)(B). 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. Specialized knowledge is also defined as special 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). 
In our previous appeal, we pointed to the fact that the Petitioner asserted only that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge was advanced, or greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and 
understanding in comparison to other workers in the company's operations. We concluded the 
Petitioner did not sufficiently describe the claimed proprietary nature of its processes and procedures, 
why advanced knowledge was required, or how the Beneficiary's understanding the company's 
proprietary knowledge was greatly developed in comparison to her colleagues. We noted that the 
Petitioner did not explain how the Beneficiary reached the position of "Lead Ayurvedic Panchakarma 
Technician" while employed abroad, or in tum, how the "proprietary approaches" of the company 
were distinguished from those of other similar practitioners in the industry. Lastly, we discussed how 
the Beneficiary received an additional year of training after she was transferred to the United States as 
a nonimmigrant, suggesting she did not have advanced knowledge while employed abroad. 
On motion, the Petitioner again states that the Beneficiary joined the foreign employer as an ayurvedic 
panchakarma technician in April 2011 "after completing a rigorous and extremely extensive twelve-
month training program in Ayurvedic Massage & Panchakarma Therapy at the [company's] I I I I Institute in India." The Petitioner further indicates that the Beneficiary 
received an additional twelve months of extensive theoretical and practical training in the company's 
"proprietary Health and Management Treatments and Programs and proprietary procedures for 
preparing the Company's herbal decoctions and herbal combinations for the treatment of various 
ailments and health issues." The Petitioner reiterates that the Beneficiary is "one of only two" 
2 
employees within the company who have received her level of training. In addition, the Petitioner 
states that "no other ayurvedic treatment organization in the world is providing these types of 
treatments." In short, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a specialized 
knowledge capacity and that she would be employed in this capacity in the United States. 
1. Advanced knowledge 
We will first analyze whether we were correct in concluding that the Beneficiary's knowledge was not 
established as advanced. As discussed in our previous decision, as a threshold matter, if the 
Beneficiary does not possess specialized knowledge, then her position abroad and in the United States 
would not involve specialized knowledge as necessary to qualify her. Upon review, we affirm our 
previous conclusion that the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary held, and 
holds, advanced knowledge. 
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 an employee is able 
to gain specialized knowledge within the organization and explain how and when the individual 
beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
Determinations concerning "advanced knowledge" require review of a beneficiary's knowledge of the 
petitioning organization's processes and procedures. A petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidence that a given beneficiary has knowledge of or expertise in the organization's processes and 
procedures that is greatly developed or farther 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. Also, 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. 
First, the Petitioner has not provided additional insight on motion as to the issues directly addressed 
in our previous appeal decision. As discussed, we concluded that the Petitioner did not sufficiently 
describe the claimed proprietary nature of its processes and procedures, why advanced knowledge was 
required for the Beneficiary's positions, or how her understanding was greatly developed in 
comparison to his colleagues. On appeal, the Petitioner does not offer additional information or 
evidence as that provided on appeal to address these discussed insufficiencies. In fact, even if the 
Petitioner had established that its company's health treatments and programs and their related 
processes and procedures were proprietary, this alone would not be sufficient to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced. The Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary's knowledge 
was greatly developed or farther along in progress, complexity, and understanding in comparison to 
others within the company. Determining whether knowledge is "advanced" requires a comparison of 
the beneficiary's knowledge against that of others. The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing such 
a favorable comparison. The Petitioner only generically asserts that the Beneficiary is "one of only 
3 
two" within the organization with her level of knowledge of the company's proprietary ayurvedic 
massage and panchakarma therapies and related processes and procedures. Indeed, the Petitioner 
does not even indicate who the other "one of the two" is and elsewhere on the record states in apparent 
conflict that the Beneficiary was the most knowledgeable. However, the Petitioner has not provided 
detailed comparisons of the Beneficiary against those within the organization to establish that her 
knowledge is greatly advanced in comparison. 
The lack of specific comparisons of the Beneficiary against her colleagues is particularly noteworthy 
since the Petitioner's assertions indicate that knowledge of the company's massage and other 
treatments and related processes and procedures is likely widely held within the company, since it 
represents the entire basis of its business. For instance, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's 
advanced knowledge is partly based on her completion of an "extremely extensive twelv,-month I 
training program in Ayurvedic Massage & Panchakarma Therapy at the [company's] 
Institute in India." However, the Petitioner also indicates that it has been ~---------~ operating worldwide for over two decades and that it is a "household name" in India and the United 
Kingdom; yet, there is no indication as to how many others have completed the company's initial 
twelve-month training program. In fact, the Petitioner does not clarify how many technicians it 
employs abroad, individuals who would likely have knowledge of the company's massage techniques 
and other treatments. To illustrate, a submitted foreign organizational chart dated in April 2017 
reflects three doctors abroad listed as "ayurvedic consultants" and that they oversaw an undisclosed 
number of "ayurvedic panchakarma technicians." The Petitioner provides no specifics as to these 
foreign employees, does not describe their levels of knowledge or training, how the Beneficiary gained 
more knowledge than apparent supervisory doctors, or how she compares to other technicians abroad. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary completed another twelve-month training 
program abroad allowing her to obtain the position of lead technician. However again, there is no 
indication or specifics on how many other employees reached this level within the organization or 
received this training. As we also noted in our previous decision, the Petitioner does not describe this 
additional training in detail, how the Beneficiary reached the position of a lead technician, nor does it 
document this additional training. 
Likewise, the Petitioner provides substantial documentary evidence indicating that it operates twelve 
locations throughout the United States and a U.S. organizational chart listed approximately 14 other 
technicians as well as supervisory level consultants and partners based at these various locations across 
the country. The Petitioner provides no details on these employees, how the Beneficiary's knowledge 
and training compares to theirs, how she gained more knowledge as compared to them, or how many 
of them completed the company's U.S.-based training program she is said to have completed. Without 
this level of detail, it is reasonable to conclude that many others have gained comparable levels of 
knowledge as that of the Beneficiary in order to provide its services throughout the United States since 
2006. It is not sufficient to merely declare that the Beneficiary is "one of two" or the most 
knowledgeable or simply state that her knowledge is proprietary, the Petitioner must demonstrate that 
the Beneficiary's knowledge is greatly developed in comparison to her colleagues within the 
organization through detailed and credible comparisons. Here, the Petitioner questionably does not 
4 
provide this level of specificity or documentation to substantiate that the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
advanced. 
Therefore, the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge was greatly 
advanced when compared to the many other employees providing its ayurvedic massage and 
panchakarma therapies both abroad and in the United States. As such, we affirm our previous decision 
as to this issue. 
2. Special Knowledge 
In the alternative, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary holds special knowledge. 
Even though the Petitioner does not clearly articulate how the Beneficiary's knowledge qualifies as 
special, we will briefly analyze it, as it generally indicates on motion that her knowledge is specialized. 
Determining whether a beneficiary has "special knowledge" requires review of a given beneficiary's 
knowledge of how the petitioning organization manufactures, produces, or develops its products, 
services, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. 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 is commonly held throughout 
a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to another is not considered 
special knowledge. 
Similar to our analysis of advanced knowledge, the Petitioner has not provided a detailed explanation 
or sufficient comparisons to establish that the Beneficiary's knowledge is distinct and uncommon in 
comparison to similarly placed workers in the industry. As discussed, the Petitioner only generally 
points to the proprietary nature of its methods and treatments, asserting that "no other ayurvedic 
treatment organization in the world is providing these types of treatments." However, the Petitioner 
provides little support for this statement or documentary evidence to establish that it is only the only 
organization in the world providing its type of ayurvedic massage and panchakarma therapy. In fact, 
there is little discussion of the industry in general, the Petitioner's competitors, nor detailed 
explanations as to how the Beneficiary's knowledge and training would be distinct and uncommon in 
comparison to similarly placed workers in the industry. It is not sufficient to only assert that its 
processes and procedures are proprietary, as it is reasonable to conclude that other ayurvedic massage 
and panchakarma therapy providers, about which we have been provided little, would also have 
individualized methods. For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is special in comparison to those similarly placed in its industry. 
The Petitioner has not established that our previous appeal decision was based on incorrect application 
of law or policy based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of that decision. 
II. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen or to reconsider our 
previous decision. 
5 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
6