dismissed L-1B Case: Hospitality

U.S. I3eparttnent of Ifomclarnrl Security 
20 hlass. iive.. N.W., Kri!. ,%3?4i 
',l:astiingrr~n. iX' 23529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: SRC 04 022 54';314 Office: TEXAS SERVlCE C'EW'I'EK ~~t~: ABW .A, 3 {I. .;. :ii:: <..*.i. .,.. , , , 
Petiriora for re Nonimmigrant Worker Purwant to Section 10 1(a)(15)(T.) of the Imtnigratlon 
nr:d Natiorlallty Ac~. 8 U.S.C. 4 I. 1Cil(a,1(15)(1.? 
, 
This is ille decision of the Adrninisrrativc Appcals Of'f?ce in ynur case. All documents hzve beeii returned to 
the offjcr. that {xiginally deciiied your cast.. Any f~triher inquiry must he made to that isfflce. 
DPSCBJSSILOW: 'T'l~e director, I'esas Semite Center, crienied the petiticm for a nnninunig~rrt visa. The nz:~tler 
is nilw before the Adn~inistrative Appeals C1iTic.e (14,401 on appeal. 'd'he AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
, . 
Ille periticriner f-lied iliis rlonimnzigrant petition seeking to extenci the employment of its heat3 baker as a 
"specialized knowledge" L-2 B nonimmlgrant iettracompany transferee pbu-suant to section IOl(a)(l SjCI,) of 
the Imrr~igratioii and h'aticrnality Act (tix Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 I0 i(a)(15)(1..j. 'The petitioner is a corporation 
organiz.r.6 uni:ter the laws of the State of New York and is engaged in hotel arid i-iospkality operations. 'T'he 
petiiioj~er claims allat it is the subsidiary of Chrb Mcditerrai~ee S.A., located in Paris. France, 'I'tle beneficiary 
was initially grankd a three-yeas period c)f :<lay in the United States, and the petitioner now seeks to exte~~d 
. . 
the benei7ciary's stay. 
I.!pon initial review of the matter. the director sent the periiioner a reqtiest for itdditio$-ral eviderlce 011 
Noveinher 176, 2003. 
 Specif-ically, the director requested the ibllowing: 
 (1 j evidence of the "1.~1iqt.re 
1nethi.~rlo1ogjes, toiris, pritgrams, and/crr applications" that are iised (7, the petitioner, inciudirlg detailed 
irik~ririation ori how they "are differer~t from tllc methodoiopies, tools, programs and/or applications used by 
other companies:" (2) tnore detail on "the ryuipmeni, system. product, tecianiqt~e, or service of svhich the 
benetici;iry . . . has specialized knc:,svledge:" (3 j n record "detailing the manner ii~ which the beneficiary has 
gaitled his!her specialized knn:~!edge" including "the i~urnher of B~ours sper:t faking the courses each day, and 
certificates of complcllon of these ci?urses:,:' (4; "he mininsuns ar2:ount of time required to train ail employee 
to fill the proffered positiol-r;" (5) the nuntber of \i/orkers similarly employed by the organiz~io!; arld the 
training recei~ed hr these employees: and (6) the knowledge gained "on-tI~e-job" by the beneficiary and how 
this knowledge was different fiorn that gairlrd by erriployees in the same 
 similar position, 
In respol-rse. the petitioner declined to strhlnit the requested records and evidence. Instead, coijnsel ibr the 
petitioner subnritted a two-page letter which disclissed the definition of "specializec% knc?%vledgc.," the 
standards to be applied. and a brief siirnmation of tile job duties previously sui~initted. .As will be discussed; 
the petitioner's failure 80 submit the requested evidence is C2taJ to its claims. 
ljpor~ reviewiiag ihe response, the directcv denied the petition concluding that the petitioner "f:iiled to establisl~ 
eligibilit? far cla.;sit?caticsn as an L-1 IS nonimrnigrar~t erriployee pcssessinq ,- speciaiized knowledge." 
- 
The petitioner subsequently tiled ail appeal. 
 i he direc~or 1Jeclini.d to treat the appeal as a aaaotior~ mci 
Icmvarded the appeal ti:, the AAO for review. 011 appeal, counsel for the petitioner assel-ts that nurnerous 
errors were inade by the director, including (1: she was "arbitrary and capricious" in her adjudication this 
matter and (2) she s>;bsaitt~ted her "o.cun opi::ionv for the "reg.ulations and guidance ~nelnoraiidums." tn 
support ctf'tllis assertion, the peiiiioi-ier did riot submit any additional evidence. 
i..Jpor~ review arrd i'br the reasons cfr'scussed bercin, cot~nst'I's assertions are not persuasive and, th~~r;. the AAC) 
wili dismiss tbe ~pj~eai. 
'H'o estabiish eligibility fix the I,-i ironimmigrant visa ciass.iiic;:tion. the petitiorler rnust meel tile criteria 
oi~tlir~ed in section 10l(a)jlfi)(l..) of the Act. Specifjcaily, a qualifying orgaxlization must have employed thc 
I~eneticia~ in 1:. qt.iaiifjii~-rg manageriai or e;.xecntive capzcity, cr in 3 speciaitzed knaw!cdge capacity, fbr one 
SRC 04 03.2 54130 
I'ngr. 3 
continuotls year within three years preceding the bei>ei;ciar;4.':: application hr admission il-rto tile tini~ed 
States. Iil addition, the benei'iciary must seek to enter the United States ten~porarily tcj ccntinue rendering his 
nr her services to the same enlployer or a subsidiary or at-1-lliate t-hereof in a mar-ragerial, e.uecutive, or 
specialized knowledge capaci~y. 
The regti1atii)il at 8 C.F.K, 9 2j4.2(1)(3) states tlaat an individual petition filed cjn Fom: 1-129 siln]] be 
acc.omp;tnied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence rhak the peiilioner and rl~e organization which e~nployed iir will employ the 
a1 ien are qualifying organizations as dei-lried in paragraph (Ti( 1 )(ii)(G) ofthis section. 
(ii) 
 Evideiace that tile alien ;+rill be errlployed ira at1 execznrivc. tnanageriai, or specializec8 
kiaow'!ecige capacity. inchding a detziled description ofthe services to be perfwmed. 
iliil 
 I;.iidence that the ainelr has ilr leait one ~,ontinuouh year of f'ull tirne ernployn~ent 
abroad \$irh-i a quali&inp organization within the thrcd: year5 pre~c~tir~g tl-rz Iiiirlg uf 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evideni.:e ili~ai the diexl's prior year of employment abroail jvas in a position that was 
nrar-ragerial. executive or involved spcciaiized knowledge and that the alien's prirtr 
education, training, and ernplityment qi~aiifies hii-rv'1-w to perform the ir~terlded 
services in the Ut~ited States: however, the svork in the ljtmited States need lint hi: the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The primary issue in the prese~~t matter is wherlier the bet-retjciarq will be enlployed by the United States 
ei:tirq in a specia!ized kl-rawiedge capacity. 
Secticil-I ;!I4(c)(Z)(B) of the i$.ct, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 I84 (c)(?i(B), provides that "an aiicn is considered to be serj~ing 
in a capaciiy ii.-iv~?i.~.ing specialized kl~o~vledge ivith r.2spei.t t.o a company if the alien has a special knowledge of 
the compa1-y product and its application iza inten~ational markets or has an advar~ced level {sf knowledge of 
prc>cesses 2nd prc~cedtncs of the company." 
7'he regtllaticn at 8 C.F.R. 9 2iS.?(l)(l)(ii)(D), defines :he tern1 "specialized kni>wIedgeU as "special 
&.nowledge possessed by 2\13 individual oi' the peiiiiorling i~rganizaiion's product, service, researcl-r, equipn~enl. 
techniques, n:anagement. or other intc"rests 2nd its application ii: internarios~al rnarkets. or an advanced levei of 
knowledge cjr expertise in itle orgal-rizati{s processes and procedtrres." 
On reviewing the petition rand the evidence, the petitior~er has nnt established that the beneficiary has been 
and will continue to be employed in n capacity that ilivolves speci, '3 1'- ~~ed hi~owieclge. 
As an initial Ratter, the petitioner's failure to submit the cvide;:ce requested 5-y the director precIuiies the 
apprrrval of this petition. Any t;.,ill.ire to s1.1bmit req~.lested eviclence that bars a rnaterjai line oi' iilquiry sl~aii be 
gro:ir-rds fbr denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 103,?(b)(i3). As tile petitioner ignoreci the director-s request for 
SRC 04 (132 5.4 130 
Page 3 
speciiic arrd relzvani zviderrce. and I'rarther failcd to subririt that e~idenct. on api-tca[. this appeal will be 
disinis~ed ai:d the petifi,wr Jcnrcd, 
Notwid~standing tire petitioner's hilure lo subrnii the reqtiested evidence, the AA8 ivill examine the qrjestiort 
of the beneficiary's claimed spezidized knixviedge. When examining tl2e specialized knowlecigz capacity of 
the benefkiary. the AAO will locils iirst LO the petitioner's description c)f the job da~ties. ,%?e 8 C.F.R. 
1.. 
 Tl~e petitiomr's Gescriptiun of ibe job duties must clearly describe the duties to he 
performed by rkre beneficiary altd indicate wl~etl~er specialized kntxvlecige is involved in the perforl-ilance of' 
the cluties. S'ee/(?'. ,%P  SO S C.F.R. $ I!IJ.7(l)~l)(iij(A). 
On revieav, the petitioner fails to provide a detrriled and specific cjescripticxt of' what lfte beneficiary does on n 
clay-tu-day basis that involves specialized k~inwledpe. For exanlple. in its letter. dated Nnven-rber 7, 2003 the 
jxfitioner stntes that the beneficiary's iiulies irrclrldr. "csod yrlality French-style bakery products according trr 
Club MeiI's stzrndards.:' "trains staff in the specifics irrf Club Med food preparation techniques and sta~adards." 
"uses his experience and advanced krtowlzdge [oQ Club Med's ifisplay of cl.i!inary art, particular to bakery 
~oods," "iierifies rl~e display 2nd arrangement of cmissanrs. breads asrd [baked] roils." and "usells] Itis 
" 
specialixcd knowledge in the clriinaty art of bokiilp and his krzowiedge of the posirioi~ oC ]-lead Baker in the 
Club Med en~iir~nanent." 
,-l.h t - . +criticrner .. did ncit, flo~i~ever. define Club h,led's standards for "French-style baliely products," tile specifics 
i?f "Club bled fc~;,nd preparation techniques arid standards," the Club Med cuiiiaary art display tecizniques, arad 
other niiteworltq, urtcomrtrort, or advanced knowledge required [or the-position offered. ,Spc? Menlo. frcsrrt 
Fujie 0. Ohata, Assoc. i.'o~nm"r., Serv. Ctr. Operations, imrriigratjon and Naturalizabior~ Serv., bitcrpr~?rirkioil 
ufSpccia;izcd KY~L~IY~CL~~:~. i (Dec. 20, 2002). In additicn, the subnsittecl irairling manrral provides little detail 
avith regard ro the petitioner's bakery irtperarinns. At rriost, the iraining nssnaral cor~taiias a it'w check iisis 
which inclirde lines for "brzail basbet," "breiids (baguette. country toat)," and "Danish pastries." 
Going on rec,crci tvitl-lout supporting documerztary evidence is :lot srri-1-icient fix purposes of n~eeting the 
brardirrt of prool in these proceedings. itr'&rrc>r t,f'l'i.e~~sirrt. ii.~$ ofi'ait$~rriii,. 14 J&N Dec. 191) (Reg. Conlna. 
1972i, Speciijcs are clearly arr intportant indication of :vhe~her a beneljciary's duties involve r;j>ecialized 
knowietfe. Otherwise, meeting the definitions \,%~orrId sjirlpiy he a i~zatier OE reiterating the regulations. Fe~ii~t 
6ros. C..'t>.. Lti% V, ;.Tcr-r~.a, 7-14 F. S~pp. 11113 (E.R.N,B'. i'd89), 
 905 F.2ii 41 (2d. CJr. 1990). 
?-fie petiriorter zrlso argues that, beyond tize main job duties specific to any position, its staft corninonly 
referred to as (:tentiis C)rgmisate~.rs ("GOs"i, l~ave secortdaryjob dtlries :hilt reqrrire specialized knotxiledge of 
tile cornpany. Specif'ically, the pt.ritic?ner states i:: its [eater dated November 7, 2003 tl~at "jtjhe knowledge 
gained by the GOs is dif'frcnt korrr tIrat foulad in the resort inrii.$srry. It is diff'eseaai 3rd unconunon to the rest 
cjf thz irrdnstry sivei~ the ur3iqueness of Club Meil and it producis." In his letter dated F'ebrrrary 17, 200-1 
counsel for the petitioner adids that tile benriiciary's specialized k~iow!ed~e is "of tl-re coarlpauy's prcicl~~ct (the 
Club Med {lacation experience) and its ;ipplieation in internatiol-ral ~narhets (at our other v*,c>rJd~vide resorts 
- " 
with wfllclt {ille be~~ei-<ciary/ is familiar ir;itb)." 
SRC 0.4 0.32 534 130 
Page 5 
Again, the petirioirer anci counsel's arguments are ~ttapersuasive. First, whether GO5 ir-a tl~eir pesforrra:nrice of 
seccjndary duties, such as nlingiing and scjcializii~g with guests. ir~volve so!ne basic fiwn of specialized 
k:!owIeclge is nut the Issue. While tile percerrtage of time spent on duties 5x4s not provided, i~ cart be assurned 
that the beneficiary' position of head baker lvill spend the vasr nlajority of iris or her time performing duties 
specific to a head baker rarher than performing the secondary njarketiog duties cnmrnon ttl all Gus. Im other 
words, it is not credible that an employer could ]lave a signifioiint announ1 of time cPevi?t.ed by eaeli employee, 
e.g., its executive chef. scjrts chefis, cc?oks; housekeeping mznager. etc., to mingle with club guests at the 
::eglect of essential. rllai~ljob duties. '1'8?rrs, what is at issue is whether the nzaijz duties of the position in wi~iclr 
:lie beneficiary will serve ii-rvolvc "speciaiized kr~owledge." .See 8 C.F. W. 21 4.2( [)(I )(ii )(A). As discussed 
above, tire petitiorrer hiled to provide any details on $%;hat specific specialized knowledge is involved in the 
proper perforar-rance of the job d-r.eties c?f bead baker. Based upon the evidence of record, the petitioracr failed 
io de~raonstrate either (1) tile benef?ciary's notewoithj, or uncommon knowledge of the petitioner's bakiirg 
prodttcts, i.e., croissants, breads, and rolls, and their application in iriternativnal rnarkets i?r (2) an advanced 
ievei of knowledge of the petitionets pr~ocilrses and priscedures with regard to its Waking operations. &r 
Section 2 I4(c)(7)(1-3) ofthe Act? 8 G.S.G. $ 11 8.4 (c)(7)jMj. 
Second, it shi?ulcf be noied that Ithe stat-utory definition of specialirsd knotv[ec8ge requires die At10 to make 
conaparisons in order to deternli1-2~ x~lhar consiitutes specialized knowledge. 'T'he term "specialized 
knowledge" is izot an absolaate concept and cannot be clearly defined, As observed in 17-56, im. v. .-ft~orngy 
Ciii!lc!~ill, "[sliln-ply put. specialized knutvledge is a relative . . '. idea wfriclr cannot have a plain meaning." 7/45 
F. Supp. 9, I5 (D.D.C. i?YO). Tlre Congressional record specifically states that the k-i category jvas intended 
for. "key personnel." Spe genei.ul<l;, H.M. .Rep. No, 91 -85 I, 1470 II.S.C.C.t%.N. 2.750.' '{'he term "key 
persunnel" denoies a posiiioir within the petitiorring ctjnzpany that is "of crucial irnyor-tance." tt'ebster's II 
New Coliege I'dictivnary 605 (Houghton MifEilr Ccr. 9001 1. In general, ail employees can reasona'871y be 
corlsidered "irnportarrt" to a peti~ioner's enterprise. If an enzplsyee did not contribtite to tile overall ecoirorl~ic 
success of an enterprise, tliere woriid be IIC~ ratiiinal economic reasoil to erriploy that person. An empliyee of 
"crucial imnporeance" or "key personnel" rnust rise abwe the .level of the i~etitioner's average eniployee. 
Accordingly. based on the det'initian of "syecializecl knowledge" arrd the congressiorral record related to that 
tern], the AA(3 must nlake comparisons not only bettveels Ilre claiixzed specialized knowledge einployee an~3 
the gener-ai labor market, hilt also hetween that employee and the serrrainder ofthe petiriomer's ivorkfvrce. 
i 
 AIthoiigh -the cited precedeni 2nd Congressional rec~vd pre-date the current statutory defjnilion of 
"specialized knowledge," rhc !\i%O tinds them instructixle. Other than deleting tfre fi~riner reyttirement that. 
specialized k~ruwlcdee .-. had ti? be "'proprietary," the 1990 Act did not signit'icar~tly alter- the defjiaition ul' 
"syrecializeif kriowledge" iionr the prior INS ii~teiptet;ition of tile terrrl. Tire 1990 Conzrz~ittee Report does not 
re-ject. criticize; or esJer> refer to any speeitk INS regulation or. precedent decision interpreting :he terrrr. The 
Ccm~nirtee Repor-t simply stares that tlie Con-t~aittee .,va.i reccr!nlrnendiiz::g a statuiory defjilition because of 
"jvlaryirlp fr.c., nc!l speciiicz~ily ir~correctl interpyetaiinns by INS," H.R. Rep. No. IOi-T2'3(l)., nt 69, 1990 
I.I.S.C.C:.A.N. at 071(i. Beyond that, the Cor~mittee Report sir-nply restates the taxitology that trbecarne section 
211{c)(2){Ri of the Act. ;Gi. 'I'he AAO cn~icludes~ tIzt.r.efictre, thc cited case, Cox-lgressional record. as well as 
:\3a~ev cf'f e?lne,; ren~ain usefill guidance ccrrncerning tire intended scope of the "speci;rii;c.ed knosvledge" I..- 
1 B clas~i~~ca~ion. 
SRC 04 032 4 130 
Page 6 
Thus, in this case, eve~-c wlieal considering the tirne spent on secondary marketing and socializirig duties by 
8 : 
every GO, the AAC) agrees with the director .that i~ott-rlng in the record irtdicates that "the beneticiay has 
acq~lired either speci:d[j or adviinced kr~owledge beyond that wl~icli is normally received through the process 
nf basic t.amiiiarizalicin with any company's procedures." In addition, the AAO is ~mcoimvinceci that the 
general GO duties sf every enlployee cannot be easily trailsfersed or taught to ariother individual. See Memo, 
froin hmes A. Pcleo. Acting Exec, Assoc. Comm'r., Office of Ogeratior~s, Irnn~igrrttion and NaturaIizlrzion 
Serv.. Ir,lrrpretwt!'orz ?f S'p~cial A-~zc~~v/trdge, 2 (Mar. 0. IC194). 111 Fact, the training ~nanual s~rbnlitred by the 
petitioner appears to be designed expressly fix the purpose of training new GOs quickly and etlkiently, 
esj~eciially tllrough the use uf easy ti: read and cotnprelaend car-tool~ drawings in horli Er3glisl-c and Frencla. 
Counsel argues r11 its letten dated FeRn1ai.y 17, 2004, however, that an alien is deemed to pnssess specialized 
hl:owledge by rneeti~ig "arsy one (sf" the "possible characteristics" listed on page two of the PuBro Merno. 
. . 
Firs?, the AAO liot~s daat, with regard tcs counsel's lellarlce on the I393 Associate Conmissioner's 
n~enloraridum. the n~enlorar~durn was irltericrled solely as a guide for employees and will not supersede the piairr 
language oftlme statI.rte or regzajations. .Mthough the rne~norandurn inay be usefc~l as a slatement of policy and as 
an aid in interpreting the Iaw, it was iniei~ded lo serve as g~.midmce and merely reflects the writer's amaalysis of'tlle 
issue. In revietvirrg counsel's argurnernt, however, the fist provided irlr page two of the Puleo Menlo, while tlot 
"all irrclusive," is ast~raiiy several of' "the possibie characlerisiics of uii aiiet? who possesses specializecri 
kr~owledgc." Id. (emphasis added). Irr other wisrds, it would be nlore, accurate to state that an alien ~vlxn 
possessed specialized knowledge shouid Z~ave at least the lisied characteristics. if rsst mare rflat were ncrt 
listed. In &is case, hased r?n the evidence ijf record. ikne petitioner a11ct counsel failed to demonstrate that the 
benetjciary possessed at Ieasr two, if #-rot more, of tlxe Iistecri cf~aracteristics in the PuIeo Memo: (1) 
I? ~pjossesses knowledge svhich, nomjally, can be ~aincd orily itrrough prior experience with dial emploqer," 
ar~d (2) "[j>lossesses kno'tviedge cof a prc?duct or process which cartl~oi be easily transferred or taught to another 
inciividual." I'd. Most irnponantly, the rnernd en~pbasizes that the petitioner rn~rst submit eviiler~ce to establish 
~l.)at the alien satistks one or more ofthe provided ~Ilaracteristics. Id. Given the petitioner's taiiure to respond 
to the ilirector's request for evidence of this nature, col.tnseI's assertions aFe far fionl persuasive. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted convincing evidence that the beneficiary's position involves specialized 
kncvvledge, it woiild still Fail ti? prove that the positior~ of head baker- was part of the cornpai?yls key personnel 
that would cj~laiity for tlse L-IPS nonirnmigrar~t cirtegory. In iilgfier. c.,lrY~ncr?r, lfie Commissioner cfiscussed 
tl-je I'egislativc interrt behind the creatisn oi' the specialized knowledge category. I X I&N Dec. 49 (Conlrrr. 
198.2). 'Tile decisicr~: iloted that the 1970 I-louse Report, I-I.R. No. 91-851, stated illat the s~~rnabber of 
admissions uncler the I,-! classiflcatiori "will not be Iarge" and that "{rjkit: class of persons eligible for such 
ncra~imtnigrai;t visas is narrowly drawn and will be carehlly regulated by the Imnligration and Nnturali;~.arion 
Service." hi. at 51. 7!1e decision iloted that the I-iouse Kepi.i~-t was siieni on the subject of specialized 
kno~vleclge. but th3.t ditring the course of' the sub-committee hearings on the bill. the Chairman specifically 
questioned ~biinesses on the le;.el of skill i7ecessar.L to qualify under the proposed "1," category. In response 
to tlie Chrtirtnan's qt~estions. various witnesses respofided that they understood. the legislation \vouid ailow 
"high-level people," "experts," individr~als with "unique" skills. a11d that ir u,onld not include "lower 
categories" of'.ivirrkers or "skilled craft tvorkars." A:kilrr idPt.i~~tlj,. id. at 50 (citing f4.M. Subcdmrn. 30. I of' 
the .lud. Ccom~i-i., In?nligwriciv/ ..kr r?f 1970: fft?twi~+~.q ox HK. Jf5, gist Cong. .? 10, 2 i X, 223, 240, 248 
{Novelnber 12: 1 (iB9)j 
SRC 84 037 54 130 
Page 7 
Revicwirrg the Corrgressional record. the Con:inissionc.r corzducted in <?iPc~l~trv of' Pennc?r that an e:upansivc. 
reading of the specialized krii~wledpe prclvision, such dlat it would include shilled workers and tecllnicians. is 
not warranted. T'he C'omrnissloner enlphasized that tluit the specialized knowledge worker classificafoi? was 
not iniencied for "a;! emphyees wit11 any level of specialitcd h;nowjedge." Afurfr!r c!fPCtmc?r, 18 I&N Dec. at 
53. Or. 3s nofed it! L%.i~~tc~ ~!fColfc~j'. 'ftizllos~ crnployees today are specialists and have heerr trailled 3rd gism 
specialized knowiet:lge. !-lowever, in view of the House Repot?, it can not be cdnclr,rded that all emp9oyees 
wjt!~ specislized I<so:vledge or perfcfrrriing high!;: tecI~njcal duties are eiiglbte for classifqcation as 
intr;icor-npany trarzsferees." 18 ?&N Dec. at I I?. According to !1/;5irlrer qff3c?nnr?.. -'(s!uch a cunclt~sioo wo~lld 
pcnnit extremely laxgc numbers of persons tcr qualify fer the 'L-l. visa" rather tl~an the "liey persot~nel" that 
b.~cngress spspecificaHy intended. Iff l&N 13ec. at 53; scr: rrll.;c>, 1756 .h:.. 745 F. Supp. at 15 jcclncludirlg ellat 
Congress did not inienil for the specialized kr~owledge capacity to extencl to Ji etnployees with specialized 
knoialedge, but rather tc~ '"hey pessi?iznei'" ad "executives.") In this case, ille co~nhiilatiorl of the beneficiary's 
claimed kmwledge of the petilioner's bakiirg operations and alleged kno~dedge of ilje petitioner's general GO 
policies and procedures fails to establish the beneficiary as a specialized kno\viedge or "key" employee with 
ui~iqr~e skills, slrperior to iliose oC tlie pefiticncrts other. current employees. 
'The plaiil meaning of the teri.n "speciaiized knuwiedge" is liniiwledge or expetTise beycsnd the otdinary in a 
particular fyeld, process, or fitrjctiil,n. Overall. ticre pciirioner has not fi~n~ished evidencc srtfficief~t io detnonstrate 
that the beneficiary's head baker duties or secondary GO duties inx(olve knowledge or expertise beyond what is 
comt~ri~niy held in his fieid. Contrary to counsel',; argument, n-rere fiin~ilishiy wid) an orpanizatinn's prudiict or 
service, such as knrtwledge of its .f<>xig,n resorts as tvell as its q~.~ality control 3rd guesi il-rteraction procedi-ires, 
does ilot col~stiilrte special kilowtedge linden. sectSon 2 14(c)(2i(B) of the Act, Tile record as presently constituteil 
is not persuasive in denlonstrating that the benellciary has speciaiized knowledge or that he Ilas been and will be 
einployed in a specialized knowledge capacity. For this =asoil, the petitiorl may not be approved. 
h,f:'isreover, as indicated above, the petitioner was put vn ficjtice of required evidence <>a' the specialized 
bnixvledge of the ber~eficiary and giveil a reasonabje opportnllity rcr provide it 3:): the record bef~re the 
nonimmigralst petiiiorl was adjudic;~ted. '.$'he petitioner F~iled to provide this critical evidence, which may 
have established tliat the proffered posirior~ involved the use of specinlized Iinc?\$ledge. The regulation stares 
that the petitioner sliall subinit addiliona! evidence as the directctr. in his or her iiisclsetiot\, may deem 
necessau?;. The purpose of the request for e~idence is to elicit frirther information that clarif-ies wliether 
eiigibility fix the benefit scltght has been estdlrlist~ed. as of the time the petition is 5led. S'ee S C.F.K. $5 
l03.2fh)(Sj and (12). The fzilnre to slibrnit rrqnestcd evidence that precludes a n~atesial line of inquiry shall 
he groui-ids for denying the petition. 8 G.F.K. 3 103.2ib)(l4>, For tl-ris additiorlal reason, the petition wijl not 
be approved. 
Acccirdingly. the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary ivill be ernphyed in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. as required by M C.F.R. 6 2 14.2(!)(3 i. 
In visa petition proceedir-igs. the I:~urden of proving eligibility for tile bcircf'it sought rel-r~ains entirely ivith the 
pelitioner. Section 291 of'the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here. !ha: burden i~as not beeli [net. Accosdingly. the 
director's decision wiIi be affim~eri arltI the petifir>ir will be denied.