dismissed L-1B Case: High-Speed Imaging Systems

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massacl~usens Ave.. N.W.. Rm. A3M2 
Washington, DC 20529 
FICE: LM 03 120 51 864 Office: NEBRASKA SERVlCE CENTER Date: J(j hi 1 0 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary- 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section I Ol (a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Ej 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in you case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
, Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
\3 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 03 120 51864 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner was established in the United States in 1986 and claims to be in the sales and service of hi h- 
speed motion analysis systems and cameras business. The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary o d 
, located in Ontario, Canada. The petitioner claims four employees and $4.6 million dollars 
in gross annual income. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the United States as a high-speed 
imaging specialist for a period of three years, at a yearly salary of $94,268.00. The director determined that 
the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and 
would be employed by the U.S. entity in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's decision and states that the evidence is sufficient to establish 
that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and will be employed in a specialized knowledge 
capacity. 
To establish L-1 eligibility, the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section IOl(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 4 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 contlnue 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: 
lntracompany transfeee 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 firm 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. 4 214.2(1)(3) 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 with 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 
LIN 03 120 51864 
Page 3 
education. traming, and employment qualifies hider to perform the intended serves 
In the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the same 
work which the alien performed abroad. 
The issue in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and will be employed 
by the U.S. entity in a "specialized knowledge" capacity as defined in the Act and the regulations. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1 I84(c)(2)(B), provides the following: 
For purposes of section IO1(a)(lS)(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. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines "special~zed knowledge" as: 
[Slpecial 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. 
The petitioner described in the petition the beneficiary's past duties as: "Manages and has ultimate 
responsibil~ty for all US. sales and support of High Speed Image System product line, including; 
recommending design and detailed engineering modifications of the product line to meet customer needs, 
evaluating orders for technical acceptability." 
The petitioner further described the beneficiary's proposed duties as: "Oversee all U.S. sales, support and 
implementation of High Speed Imaging System product line, including: recommending design and detaiIed 
engneering modifications of product to meet customer needs; evaluating ordered of [sic] technical 
acceptability; leading planning, designing, and manufacturing and installation of system orders." 
In a letter of support, dated February 26, 2003, the petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed dutles as: 
[The beneficiary's] primary responsibility will be overseeing a11 U.S. sales and support 
related to our High Speed Imaging System products, which will include: recommending 
design and detailed engineering changes of company products to fit the particular needs of 
customers; evaluating orders for technical acceptability; establishing new clients; being 
responsible for the planning, designing, procuring, manufacturing, and installabon of the 
entire High Speed lrnaging System product, as well as, the overall responsibility for the 
commissioning of the system for each order. [The beneficiary] will also meet with in-house 
technical personnel to discuss potential areas of improvement with current projects. His 
additional management duties will include; overseeing all U.S. sales and support personnel 
related to our High Speed Imaging System products; recommending the hiring, firing, and 
giving of raises to the independent contractors whom he will oversee; and negotiating or 
terminating contracts with the sub-contracted companies whose work he will also oversee. 
LIN 03 120 51864 
Page 4 
The petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's resume in which the beneficiary described his experience 
as a product manager for the foreign entity to include: "sales and marketing of High Speed Imaging system in 
North America; design and detailed engineering for special applications; project planning, procurement, 
manufacturing and installation of system; and commissioning of system." 
The petitioner subm~tted copies of a Bachelors of Engineering degree fiom the University of Calcutta and a 
diploma for a Master of Technology Degree in ElectncaI of Technology 
received by the beneficiary, and an academic evaluation written by 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence on the subject, counsel asserted that the 
beneficiary has received six months of extensive training from the foreign entity, including one-on-one 
technical training with the company president and senior technologies officer. Counsel also asserted that 
during the six-month period the beneficiary was engaged in "hands-on experimentationw-self-taught training. 
Counsel further asserted that the beneficiary had received a degree in electrical engineering and had many 
years of work experience in the field. Counsel noted that the beneficiary's work experience is advanced and 
specialized in nature. In addition, counsel described the beneficiary's duties and percentage of time spent 
performing those duties as: 
Recommending design and detailed engineering changes of company products to fit the 
particular needs of customers 15% 
Evaluating orders for technical acceptability 5% 
Establishing new cIients 15% 
Planning, designing, procuring, manufacturing, and installing the entire High Speed Imaging 
System product, as well as, the overall responsibility for the commissioning of the system for 
each order 30% 
Meet with in-house technical personnel to discuss potential areas of improvement with 
current projects 1 0% 
Overseeing all U.S. sales and support personnel related to our High Speed Imaging 
System products 10% 
Recommending the hiring, firing, and giving of raises and negotiating or terminating 
contracts of the independent contractors he oversees 5% 
Reporting and consulting with the president of the company on all ongoing projects 10% 
The director denied the petition after determining that the evidence failed to establish that the beneficiary had 
been or would be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. The dlrectot determined that the majority of 
the beneficiary's duties as described were in the areas of marketing, sales, and supervision. The director 
noted that such duties were not demonstrated to require specialized knowledge to be performed. The director 
stated that there was not enough evidence to show how the beneficiary's training and education received 
could be considered as advanced or specialized. The director also stated that the petitioner failed to establish 
the inability of another competent individual to learn the duties of the position with some training from the 
LIN 03 120 51864 
Page 5 
company. The director concluded by noting that the US, entity's web site contained a vacancy 
announcement for a Sales Specialist and Technical Sales Consultant whose duties and educational 
requirements were similar to the requirements proposed for the beneficiary. 
On appeal, counsel reasserts that the beneficiary underwent an initial six months of advanced training and that 
his training continues on an on-going basis. Counsel further asserts that the director erred in not taking into 
consideration the beneficiary's advanced degree in electrical engineering and years of experience in the 
industry as prerequisite to the specialized training. Counsel contends that the training received by the 
beneficiary at the foreign entity was advanced, unique, and attainable by only a few individuals in the 
industry. Counsel notes that although the beneficiary's position requires some knowledge of computer 
programming and project management, he is primarily an electricaI engineer and IS responsible for creating, 
maintaining, and implementing highly advanced proprietary photonic equipment. Counsel asserts that the 
beneficiary's knowledge acquired through his years of work experience and specialized training cannot be 
easily imparted to another individual without causing financial hardship and hampering the U.S. and foreign 
entities' business operations. Counsel further asserts that although some of the duties and responsibilities 
listed on the company's web site job announcements are similar to those of the beneficiary, they are not 
identical and that the primary purpose (sales) for the positions listed are different from that of the beneficiary. 
Counsel concludes by contending that the beneficiary's knowledge qualifies him to train the new hires who 
are hired to fill positions reIated to high-speed imaging. 
On review of the record, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge or that he will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity as required by 
8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Counsel asserts that an individual applying for a BIanket L-I I3 classification only 
has to demonstrate six months of training to qualify in the specialized knowledge category. Counsel further 
asserts that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge of the organizations' products, processes, and 
procedures in that he has received SIX-months of initial one-on-one and "hands-on experimentation" training 
at the foreign entity. Contrary to counsel's contentions, this petition is not a blanket L-IB petition and 
therefore that standard of proof will not apply in the instant case. The petitioner has not presented any 
evidence that the training offered by the foreign entity equipped the beneficiary with specialized knowledge 
not common to other electrical engineers in the industry. There has been no evidence submitted such as 
certificates of completion, course descriptions, and official transcripts to establish that the beneficiary 
received specialty training regarding High Speed Imaging System products and processes from the foreign 
entity. Furthermore, the "hands-on experimentation" received by the beneficiary was self-taughr. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Crafr of Cal$omiu, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Mutter ofobaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533, 534 (BIA 1988); Mutter Of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. I (BIA 1983); Matter ofRarnirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N 
Dec. 503.506 (BIA 1980). 
Further, contrary to counsel's assertions, mere familiarity with an organization's product, process, or service, 
such as knowledge of its high speed imaging system technology and photon~c product applications, does not 
constitute specialized knowledge as defined by section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Wh~le the petitioner claims 
that the beneficiary's experience with the organization includes intimate famiIiarity with the foreign entity's 
integrated high speed imaging systems operations and proprietary products, including "automated a~r-bag 
development image analysis systems and microdensitorneter systems," this statement alone is not indicative 
of specialized knowledge capacity. In addition, although the petitioner contends that the beneficiary will be 
LIN 03 120 5 1864 
Page 6 
integral as a high speed imaging specialist at the U.S. entity, and will continue to utilize the train~ng, 
knowledge and experienced gained, this claim is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary possesses 
special~zed knowledge or will be performing tasks that require specialized knowledge. 
The record does not demonstrate that the tasks described are not common to all electrical engineers in that 
field. The beneficiary's duties are described as being responsible for recommending design and detailed 
engineering changes; evaluating orders for technical acceptability; establishing new clients; planning, 
designing, procuring, manufacturing, and installing the entire High Speed Imaging System product; meet with 
in-house technicaI personnel to discuss potential areas of improvement with current project; overseeing all 
U.S. sales and support personnel; and reporting and consulting with the president of the company on all 
ongoing projects. The described duties do not require advanced expertise or establish that the beneficiary 
possesses a special knowledge of the organization's products and processes as opposed to skill and training in 
electrical engineering. 
In addition, counsel states that the beneficiary's proposed tasks w~ll cons~st of creating, maintaining, and 
implementing highly advanced proprietary photonic equipment. There has been no evidence submitted to 
establish that the tasks are so intricate that they require the services of one who possesses specialized 
knowledge in the field. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter qf Treasure Crafi cfCul$ornia, 
supru. It appears that the description given is common to all engineering firms in the imaging development 
business and does not differentiate the beneficiary from that of any other person employed as an electrical 
engineer. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary has advanced or special knowledge of the petitioning 
organization's product, procedures, or its appIication in U.S. and international markets. Counsel contends that 
the beneficiary's combined knowledge of the organization's proprietary products, namely high speed imaging 
systems, is sikmificant and qualifies as "specialized knowledge." Contrary to counsel's contention, any 
experienced electrical engineer would necessarily possess knowledge of his or her company's proprietary 
products in order to function efficiently in the field. The beneficiary's employment experience with the foreign 
organization may have given him knowledge that is useful in performing his duties as a high speed imaging 
specialist, but it cannot be the case that any useful skill is to be considered special or advanced knowledge. One's 
knowledge of high speed imaging technologies is not, by itself, specialized knowledge. Contrary to counsel's 
assertions. the beneficiary's Icnowledge of the company's product or of the processes and procedures of the 
forergn company, has not been shown to be substantially different from, or advanced in relation to. that of any 
electrical engineer similarly employed. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Mutter of Treo-~ure Craft of 
Cul~~rnia, supra. Without supporting documentation, the assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaighena, supra: Matter of Rarnirez-Sanchez, supra. 
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. See section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Here, the 
evidence demonstrates that the beneficiary possesses the skill required to work as an electrical engineer 
dealing with various high speed imaging system applications, but not that he has specialized knowledge of the 
petitioner's processes and procedures. 
LM 03 120 51864 
Page 7 
Counsel contends that the beneficiary's knowledge acquired through his years of work experience and 
specialized training cannot be easily imparted to another individual without causing financial hardship and 
hampering the U.S. and foreign entities' business operations. However, there has been no independent 
documentary evidence submitted to substantiate counsel's claim or to show that an electrical engineer within 
the United States cannot be trained to create, maintain, and implement high speed imaging system products 
and equipment within a reasonable period of time so as not to negatively effect the overall operations of the 
U.S. and foreign entities. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Mutter of Treasure Craft of Californiu, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972). Although counsel indicates that the job descriptions, educational 
backgrounds, and work requirements found on the U.S. company's web site with regard to the Sales 
Specialist and the Technical Sales Consultant are similar but not identical to the beneficiary's job duties and 
educational requirements, there has been insufficient evidence submitted to refute the director's decision in 
that respect. The evidence of record indicates that other than the sales experience, the job descriptions, 
required work related experience, and educational qualifications are too similar to distinguish the 
beneficiary's expertise tkom that of a Sales Specialist or Technical Sales Consultant. 
Furthermore, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties fails to establish that an individual 
who possesses specialized knowledge is necessary for the proposed high speed imaging specialist position in 
the United States. The following job duties are common duty descriptions within the engineering field and 
thus appear not to rise to the level of specialized knowledge: oversees all U.S. sales, support and 
implementation of High Speed Imaging System product line, including recommending design and detailed 
engineering modifications of product to meet customer needs; evaluating orders for technical acceptability; 
and leading planning, designing, and manufacturing and installation of system orders. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would be employed in a specialized knowledge position or 
that the position requires an individual with specialized knowledge. 
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. (j 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed