dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF R-1- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 9, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a 2-employee information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as the deputy marketing officer of its new office I under the L-1 B nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(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 California Service Center denied the petition on multiple grounds. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that: 1) the Beneficiary acts abroad, or would act in 
the United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity, 2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad for 
one continuous year out of the three preceding the date the petition was filed, 3) the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer was doing business as required by the regulations, 4) it had a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer, and 5) it had secured sufficient physical 
premises for its new business. 
The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen and reconsider which was denied by the Director. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director disregarded 
the specialized and advanced nature of the Beneficiary's duties and a detailed description of her 
position. The Petitioner further asserts that the Director did not consider submitted documentation 
relevant to the foreign employer's business operations, such as contracts and media publications. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B 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 
1 The term "new office'' refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii){F). 
Maller of R-1- Inc 
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 
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 ). 
If a beneficiary is coming in a specialized knowledge capacity to open a new office, the petitioner must 
submit evidence that it secured sufficient physical premises to house ·its operation, evidence that the 
new business entity is or will be a qualifying organization, and evidence that it has the financial 
ability to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United States. See 
generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(vi). 
II. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
The issue in this matter is whether the Director properly denied the Petitioner's motion to reopen and 
reconsider. 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such 
as, for instance, submission of a properly completed Form I-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with 
the correct fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l). 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (1) 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 {l) state the reasons for reconsideration; (2) be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy; and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
A. Motion to Reopen 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. 
The Petitioner only asserted that the Director disregarded and misinterpreted evidence. The 
Petitioner neither claimed new facts nor submitted affidavits or other documentary evidence. For 
this reason, we affirm the Director's denial of the motion to reopen. 
8. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that the denial was based 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
In the initial denial decision, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary's duties appeared to be 
typical of a marketing manager and compared them to the duties set forth for marketing managers in 
2 
Matier of R-1- Inc 
the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook). The Director 
stated that the Petitioner provided little information regarding the company's asserted proprietary 
technology in which the Beneficiary was asserted to have specialized knowledge. As a result, the 
Director concluded that it could not be determined whether the Beneficiary's knowledge was special 
or advanced when compared to other similar placed marketing employees. The Director also 
indicated that the Beneficiary's duties were broad and non-specific and determined that they did not 
demonstrate that her duties were highly developed, complex, or out of the ordinary. 
In denying the Petitioner's motion, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not provide specific 
reasons for why the initial decision on the merits was incorrect, how or what laws were misapplied, 
or articulate precedent decisions to support its assertions on motion. The Director emphasized that 
the petition was denied on several different grounds, and the decision provided a thorough a 
discussion on each ground for dismissal, and that the Petitioner did not present sufficient assertions 
to address all the issues in its previous decision. . 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director disregarded its descriptions of the Beneficiary's 
duties and "how specialized and advanced these duties were." The Petitioner asserts that the 
Director abused her discretion by disregarding the submitted evidence and focusing on the 
Handbook ·s description• of marketing managers. The Petitioner states that the Director did not 
consider a detailed description of the Beneficiary's "seventeen areas of expertise in the field of 
marketing." 
We concur with the Director's reasoning in denying the motion to reconsider. As correctly noted by 
the Director, the Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate the Beneficiary's duties abroad or the 
nature of her knowledge. The Petitioner submitted a generic duty description of the Beneficiary's 
foreign duties dated in February 20142 more than two years prior to the date the petition was filed. 
As such, the Beneficiary's asserted duties did not appear to specifically apply to her and her specific 
knowledge and experience, but were just a general outline of the duties of the asserted position 
formulated at the date of the company's formation. The Petitioner provided no details regarding the 
Beneficiary's actual knowledge, experiences, training, or accomplishments, such as negotiations she 
participated in with customers, marketing policies she developed, advertising campaign strategies 
she implemented, or promotional materials she formulated. In addition, Petitioner did not describe 
or document advanced marketing technologies she implemented, "burning or important issues" she 
advised the company director on, or suggestions on staffing and logistical support she provided to 
the company director. The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin 
Bros. Co .. Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N. Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F .2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Further, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was "one of the main contributors to the success 
of our Company's product: proprietary web applications software" and that she had "several years' 
experience in the technology." However, the Petitioner provided little description or evidence to 
demonstrate the nature of the foreign employer's products, proprietary web applications software, or 
2 We note that the petition was filed on September 12, 2016 
3 
Maller of R-1- lnc 
technology. It did not explain the purpose or functioning of these products or applications or how 
the Beneficiary developed special knowledge of them. In fact, the Petitioner submitted little (?f the 
evidence requested by the Director, such as a letter from the Beneficiary's supervisor describing her 
specialized knowledge abroad, a description of the products, services, tools, or equipment involved, 
an explanation of why her knowledge is special or advanced, the time required to reach the her level 
of knowledge, information on her actual training and experience, and an explanation of how her 
knowledge compared to similarly placed employees within and the company and industry. 
Likewise, although the Petitioner appeared to indicate that the Beneficiary had substantial 
supervisory duties abroad, such as "assigning tasks to employees of her department" and "providing 
ergonomic working conditions," it provided no information or evidence relevant to her department 
or subordinates including their names, titles, duties, education levels, and salaries, evidence also 
requested by the Director. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of 
inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the employing 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. 
However, the Petitioner provided little explanation or evidence to demonstrate the nature of the 
Beneficiary's knowledge; as such, we cannot determine whether it is distinct and uncommon in 
comparison to other marketing managers employed in other industries. Certainly, the information 
technology field is vast as well as the marketing of products within these companies. It is also 
reasonable to state that there are numerous companies who have developed web applications which 
are proprietary. However, without sufficient explanation and evidence as to the nature of the web 
applications software and technology in which the Beneficiary has knowledge, it is not clear how it 
is special in comparison to numerous other marketing employees involved in various information 
technology fields. 
In addition, a key element that factors into a determination of whether the Beneficiary has "special" 
knowledge is establishing precisely how and when the Beneficiary obtained the knowledge that is 
claimed to be "special." However, even if the Petitioner had described the Beneficiary's knowledge, 
it also did not indicate how she acquired it. Beyond broadly stating that the Beneficiary has several · 
years' experience with the foreign employer's proprietary products, the Petitioner does not outline 
the process by which she attained her current level of knowledge, such as the products she worked 
with or the projects she worked on during her foreign employment. The Petitioner claimed that the 
Beneficiary had a "lasting positive impact" with the foreign employer, but it does not explain why or 
how. 
We also note that determining whether a beneficiary's knowledge is "special" requires a comparison 
of that knowledge to the knowledge of others who hold comparable positions in the Petitioner's 
industry. The Petitioner bears the burden of showing that the Beneficiary holds knowledge that is 
4 
Matter of R-1- lnc 
noteworthy or uncommon compared to her colleagues outside the organization. However, the 
Petitioner did not compare the Beneficiary's duties to those of other similarly employed 
professionals at similar organizations. In light of the above, we find that the Director was correct in 
concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that special knowledge was required to perform the 
Beneficiary's assigned duties abroad. 
The Petitioner also did not establish, in the alternative, that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
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 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. 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. 
As discussed, the Petitioner did not submit a detailed and current foreign duty description for the 
Beneficiary, nor did it explain her daily tasks, projects, accomplishments, or the specific nature of 
her knowledge. The Petitioner only vaguely referred to the foreign employer's proprietary web 
applications, but did not describe or document them. Further, the Petitioner did not_ indicate how 
many in the organization hold the Beneficiary's level of knowledge of its claimed proprietary web 
applications. Likewise, the Petitioner only provided vague information as to the foreign employer's 
organizational chart and did not submit any information on the Beneficiary's referenced subordinates 
or specifically indicate how her knowledge compares to these colleagues within the organization. 
Therefore, the Director correctly concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge was set apart from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others 
within the organization. 
The Director provided a thorough analysis of why the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's 
specialized knowledge and also correctly denied the petition on four other grounds. For the reasons 
set forth above, we concur with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
the Beneficiary acts abroad, or would act in the United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
As the Petitioner was required to overcome all grounds for denial for the motion to reconsider to be 
granted and the Director thoroughly and adequately addressed these other issues in her initial denial 
decision, we decline to address them all on appeal.3 Therefore, the Petitioner did not meet the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider. For this reason, the appeal must be dismissed. 
3 We also note that the Petitioner does not discuss two of the Director's previous grounds for denial on appeal; namely, 
whether the Director had erred in concluding that it·had not established that the Beneficiary was employed for one year 
abroad ip the three preceding the filing of the petition and whether she was mistaken in detennining that it did not 
5 
Matter of R-1- Jnc 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the Director's denial of 
the motion to reopen and reconsider was improper. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-1- Inc, ID# 1214376 (AAO Aug. 9, 2018) 
demonstrate that it had qualifying relationship with the foreign employer. 
6