dismissed L-1B Case: Health Services

MATTER OF S-K-A-C-0-1.._ _ ____. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 3, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , an " " seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its 
.__ _______ __,Technician" under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lB 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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required , that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that she was employed 
abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity and would be employed in a specialized knowledge 
capacity in the United States. 
On appeal , the Petitioner disputes the Director's decision and contends that the Beneficiary had 
advanced knowledge of the foreign entity's proprietary treatments , programs, and procedures, which 
were cultivated through "many years of practice and research." 
Upon de nova review , we find that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and that she was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States 
in a specialized knowledge capacity. Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB nonimmigrant visa classification , a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial , executive , or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States . Section 101(a)(l5)(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. Id. The petitioner 
Matter of S-K-A-C-0-~I -~ 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner states that it is anl I health services provider that uses proprietary health and 
beauty packages and therapies. It claims that its foreign parent entity has developed "various unique 
approaches to the I I[ and] I ~reatments" and that "only persons with specialized 
and deep knowledge and experience" on the treatment procedures and herbal preparations can 
determine the appropriate treatment based on clients' specific ailments. The Petitioner does not 
describe the proprietary nature of its treatment procedures and claims that the Beneficiary has 
advanced knowledge of the Petitioner's various therapies and treatment processes and procedures, 
which she has and will continue to implement in her employment with the U.S. entity. To support the 
claim that the Beneficiary possesses te reauisite specialized knowledge, the Petitioner refers to the 
Beneficiary's "extensive training in_ I Massage andl !Therapy," including a 
diploma the Beneficiary obtained from the foreign entity's training institute and the formal training 
curriculum she completed in April 2017 during her U.S. employment. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether she has been employed abroad and will be employed in the United 
States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
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 she possesses 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's past and intended future 
employment involve specialized knowledge. 1 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge ifhe 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. A 
petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition. 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneficiary's 
knowledge is "special" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's 
knowledge against that of others. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge, the petitioner 
ordinarily must demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the 
particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. The ultimate question 
is whether the petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is special or advanced, and that the beneficiary's position 
requires such knowledge. 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
Matter C?f S-K-A-C-0~~-____. 
As the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has "advanced" knowledge and does not specifically 
claim that the Beneficiary has knowledge that is "special," we will only address the claim being made 
and will discuss whether the Beneficiary's knowledge is "special." 
Because "advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, 
the petitioning entity may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge of or 
an 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. 
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 and when the 
individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner describes the therapeutic products and services it offers, repeatedly 
referring to the "various I I preparations" and "unique methods" for administering those 
preparations. The Petitioner also lists a variety of ailments that its products and services are used to 
address, claiming that only an "extensively trained" person can make the herbal preparations used in 
the course of the treatments it offers. The Petitioner does not, however, describe the proprietary nature 
of its processes and procedures or explain why "advanced" knowledge is required to implement them. 
Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is able to perform her job duties because she is 
highly trained, it does not describe a path for attaining advanced knowledge or establish that 
knowledge that is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and understanding in 
comparison to the Petitioner's other employees is needed to perform the Beneficiary's duties. 
The Petitioner also discusses the Beneficiary's training, stating that the Beneficiary completed a 
"rigorous and extremely extensive" 12-month training program in April 2011 at a training institute 
owned by the foreign entity, which "awarded" the Beneficiary a diploma for "successful completion" 
of its "....._ _________ ~Therapies" program. The Petitioner does not claim that the training 
the Beneficiary received prior to assuming her initial position abroad was limited to only certain 
employees or that the Beneficiary had to meet other prerequisites prior to assuming that position. 
Rather, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary assumed the position of'....._ _______ ____. 
Technician" upon completing the 12-month in-house training program, and although the record 
demonstrates that the Beneficiary received 12 more months of "intensive theoretical and practical 
training" during her employment in the United States, there is no nexus between the additional 
training, which the Beneficiary completed in April 2017 during her employment in the United States, 
and her position as "lead" technician, which she held during her employment abroad and which took 
place prior to the additional training. As the Petitioner did not complete the additional training during 
her employment abroad, it cannot be said that the knowledge gained from such training was relevant 
3 
Matter C?f S-K-A-C-0~._ _ ___, 
to the Beneficiary's foreign employment or the specialized knowledge she was claimed to possess in 
the course that employment. 
Further, the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary was one of only two people among the foreign 
entity's employees to receive "such in-depth and extensive training" appears to have no basis, as there 
is little to suggest that only the Beneficiary and one other individual were privy to the training; merely 
claiming that the Beneficiary was "among the select few" chosen to complete the training does not 
establish that it was given to only two employees. If, as the Petitioner indicates, the "in-depth and 
extensive training" was offered to the Beneficiary and one other employee, it is unclear how the 
foreign entity was able to acquire otherl I technicians. Moreover, the Beneficiary's job 
description expressly states that the Beneficiary's job duties included training "new employees" to 
perforni I andl ~ therapies, make the therapeutic preparations, and use the foreign 
entity's "proprietary treatment packages." This claim negates the notion that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge was held by only a few people, as the Beneficiary's job description specifically states that 
she was responsible for disseminating her knowledge of the organization's products and treatments to 
other company employees. If USCIS finds reason to believe that an assertion stated in the petition is 
not true, USCIS may reject that assertion. See, e.g., Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); 
Anetekhai v. INS, 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. 
Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
We further note that the record does not clarify how the Beneficiary attained the presumably elevated 
position of "Lead.__ _______ ___, Technician," which she is claimed to have commenced 
"beginning in 2012." Although the Petitioner refers to the "exclusive and proprietary approaches" of 
its organization, it does not indicate that the Beneficiary underwent further training abroad, beyond 
the initial one-year program, to gain knowledge that is claimed to be "advanced" with respect to those 
approaches, nor does the record contain evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary's knowledge was 
greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity and understanding as compared to the 
knowledge of other I I technicians employed by the foreign entity. The Petitioner must 
support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates its claim regarding the Beneficiary's advanced knowledge, once 
again emphasizing its "unique, exclusive and proprietary approaches" to I I treatments and 
programs as well as the Beneficiary's "additional" training, which she received after becoming an 
I !technician. As in its prior submissions, however, the Petitioner does not list the notable 
characteristics of its "proprietary approaches" to distinguish them from those of other I I 
practitioners. Further, despite claiming that the Beneficiary was able to address a host of health 
afflictions by using the foreign employer's proprietary treatments and I I preparations, the 
Petitioner did not establish that the formal training the Beneficiary received during her employment 
abroad resulted in advanced knowledge of these treatments and preparations or that advanced 
knowledge was required for the Beneficiary to carry out her assigned duties. Moreover, the claim that 
the Beneficiary acquired and used specialized knowledge during her employment abroad is 
contradicted by the fact that the Beneficiary did not undergo the additional training, which forms the 
basis of the Petitioner's specialized knowledge claim, until after she stopped working for the foreign 
entity and, in fact, had been working for the U.S. entity for approximately one year by the time such 
4 
Matter C?f S-K-A-C-0~~--~ 
training had commenced. In other words, if the additional U.S. training is directly responsible for the 
Beneficiary gaining advanced knowledge of her employer's proprietary treatments and procedures and 
the Beneficiary did not complete such training until sometime into her period of employment with the 
U.S. entity, then it stands to reason that the foreign position, which the Beneficiary held prior to 
commencing the additional training in the United States, could not have involved specialized 
knowledge and the Beneficiary cannot be deemed as having worked abroad in a specialized knowledge 
capacity. As noted earlier, USCIS may reject an assertion that is reasonably found to be untrue. See, 
e.g., Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); Anetekhai v. INS, 876 F.2d at 1220; Lu-Ann Bakery 
Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. at 10; Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. Thus, even 
if, arguendo, the Petitioner were able to establish that the additional year-long training the Beneficiary 
received during her employment in the United States resulted in advanced knowledge of the 
organization's proprietary treatments and procedures, the Petitioner would be precluded from meeting 
the criteria for this nonimmigrant classification because it has not established that the Beneficiary's 
foreign employment, for which the additional training was not a prerequisite, was in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
Furthermore, as noted earlier, the Petitioner has not adequately described the proprietary treatments 
and procedures or pointed to distinguishing characteristics to establish that such treatments and 
procedures are not commonly found within the industry or that advanced knowledge is required to 
implement these treatments and procedures. Although the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary is 
responsible for preparing its manual describing its standard operating procedures, it has not established 
that advanced knowledge is required to carry out this responsibility. By definition, the term "standard" 
implies that the procedures can be used by personnel company-wide and would not require specialized 
knowledge to interpret or apply. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that one need not possess 
specialized knowledge to create this broadly applicable manual. 
In sum, we find that the Petitioner did not establish a clear path for gaining specialized knowledge 
within its organization or demonstrate that, in fact, the Beneficiary gained such knowledge. Rather, 
the Petitioner focused primarily on the Beneficiary's formal training - both abroad and in the United 
States - but did not establish that such training resulted in specialized knowledge of the treatments 
and procedures that the Beneficiary implemented during her employment abroad and which she now 
uses in her position with the petitioning entity. As such, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary acquired specialized knowledge and was employed abroad and would be employed in the 
United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of S-K-A-C-d,__ _ ___,I, ID# 6432445 (AAO Oct. 3, 2019) 
5