dismissed L-1B Case: Industrial Transportation Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
FILE: LIN 02 245 50938 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
F~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 02 245 50938 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonirnrnigrant visa petition was approved by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center. Upon subsequent review, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke approval and 
ultimately revoked the approval of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner, a Delaware corporation, engaged in industrial transportation management, claims 
that it is a subsidiary of Trimac Corporation, located in Canada. The petitioner seeks to classify 
the beneficiary as a nonirnrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of 
the lmmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101(a)(lS)(L), as a specialized 
knowledge worker (L-1B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a traffic supervisor. 
The beneficiary, a Canadian citizen, submitted the petition at the port of entry in Calgary, 
Alberta, Canada on July 18, 2002 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(17)(i). The beneficiary was 
admitted to the United States in L-1B status and the approved petition was forwarded to the 
Nebraska Service Center, which affirmed the approval on July 26,2002. 
However, on April 4, 2003, the director served notice upon the petitioner of its intent to revoke 
the approval of the petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). The director stated that a 
review of the record indicated that the beneficiary does not possess specialized knowledge as 
required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The director granted the petitioner 30 days 
in which to submit evidence in support of the petition and in opposition to the revocation. The 
petitioner did not submit a response. 
On August 28, 2003, the director revoked the approval of the petition. In revocation proceedings, 
the director found that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary had specialized 
knowledge or that the beneficiary would be employed in a capacity requiring specialized 
knowledge. The director noted in his decision that the instant petition was submitted just four 
days after the beneficiary was denied entry in L-1B classification at the port of entry in Portal, 
North Dakota, where she stated that she had trained others to perform the duties she would be 
performing in two weeks.' 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner submits a letter and asserts that the director erroneously 
minimized the importance and complexity of the position offered to the beneficiary. Counsel 
further explains the proposed duties and states that the position requires advanced knowledge of 
corporate processes. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 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. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek 
I It is noted for the record that the Director, Nebraska Service Center, subsequent to the denial of 
the beneficiary's application for admission in LIB status, issued a request for additional evidence 
and ultimately denied the previous petition on April 4,2003 (LIN 02 243 5 1435). 
LIN 02 245 50938 
Page 3 
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 managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
Under CIS regulations, the approval of an L-1A petition may be revoked on notice under six 
specific circumstances. 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). To properly revoke the approval of a 
petition, the director must issue a notice of intent to revoke that contains a detailed statement of 
the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. 
fj 214,2(1)(9)(iii)(B). Under CIS regulations, the approval of an L-IA petition may be revoked 
on notice under six specific circumstances. 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). To properly revoke the 
approval of a petition, the director must issue a notice of intent to revoke that contains a detailed 
statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. 
tj 2 1 4.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). 
In the present matter, the director provided notice of the grounds for the revocation. Referring to 
the eligibility criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(ii), the director reviewed the rebuttal evidence and 
concluded that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary does not possess specialized 
knowledge. Upon review, the director revoked the approval on the basis of 8 C.F.R. 
tj 2 1 4.2(1)(9)(iii)(A)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(3) requires that an individual petition filed on the Form 1-129 
shall be accompanied by: 
(iv) 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; 
(iv) 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. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within 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 education, training, and employment qualifies him/her to 
perform the intended services 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 
whether the proposed employment is in a capacity that requires specialized knowledge. 
Section 2140(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 184(c)(2)(B), provides the following: 
LIN 02 245 50938 
Page 4 
For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(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. $ 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines "specialized 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. 
In a supporting letter dated July 15, 2002, the beneficiary's proposed US. duties as a Traffic 
Supervisor were described as the following: 
The candidate will be required to perform a multitude of regulatory duties which 
will include, but not limited to, maintaining control over equipment and dnvers with 
respect to customers requirements, and equipment specifications, coordinate [the 
company's] response to regulatory authorities in accordance with [the company's] 
corporate policies and procedures, and provide guidance and information with 
respect to product stewardship, union agreements, and route-relevant hauling 
patterns and regulations. The candidate will be responsible for acting as a liaison for 
shop personnel, clients and other . . . Corporation branch locations. The candidate 
will also arrange for specific driver training as it may become required. It is 
therefore essential that the candidate possess an advanced level of knowledge of [the 
company's] processes as this position will be critical in ensuring commercial 
consistency. 
In addition, the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary has more than fourteen years of experience 
with the company, she possesses senior level experience and has specific, specialized knowledge of 
the company's policies, processes, and practices. The petitioner briefly described the beneficiary's 
current duties as a claims supervisor, and stated that she previously served as a traffic supervisor with 
the Canadian entity for a three-year period. 
On July 18, 2002, the petition was approved at the port of entry. However, on April 4, 2003, the 
director served notice upon the petitioner of its intent to revoke the approval of the petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(2). The petitioner did not submit a response to the notice of 
intent to revoke the approval. 
On August 28, 2003, the director revoked the approval of the petition because the petitioner failed 
to establish that the beneficiary had specialized knowledge or that the beneficiary would be 
employed in a capacity requiring specialized knowledge. The director noted that the beneficiary 
was previously denied L-1B classification for the same position at a different port of entry on July 
14, 2002, just four days prior to submitting the instant petition, based on the beneficiary's 

LIN 02 245 50938 
Page 6 
foreign entity in a specialize knowledge worker capacity. For this additional reason, the petition 
will not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), ajyd. 3 45 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
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. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.