dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20536 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 02 147 50 199 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
pc 
I Robert P. Wieman 
Pdministrative Appeals Office 
EAC 02 147 50199 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner is an information technology consulting firm. The beneficiary was previously approved for an 
L-1B visa under a blanket pbtition, and has been temporarily employed by the petitioner as an applications 
software analyst and programmer. The petitioner seeks to extend the beneficiary's classification as an L-1B 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. $1 lOl(a)(lS)(L). 
The director denied the petition concluding that the beneficiary is not employed in a position that involves 
specialized knowledge. Specifically, the director stated that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the 
procedures used by the beneficiary are significantly different from the methods generally used in other 
technology consulting firms, or that the beneficiary's understanding of the petitioning organization's 
processes constitutes specialized knowledge. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director 
declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserted that the director improperly applied the relevant statute to the 
evidence previously submitted in support of the beneficiary's specialized. knowledge capacity. Counsel 
further contended that the director failed to examine the record, and that the decision to deny the petition 
contradicts legislative history. 
To establish L-1 eligibility, the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 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 continue 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)(3) further 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 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, 
EAC 02 147 50199 
Page 3 
training, and employment qualifies himlher 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" as defined in the 
Act and the regulations. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 184(c)(2)(B), provides the following: 
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. 
A specialized knowledge professional is further defined at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(E) as: 
[A]n individual who has specialized knowledge as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(D) of this 
section and is a member of the professions as defined in section 101(a)(32) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act. 
In a letter attached to the petition, the petitioner outlined the following job responsibilities of the beneficiary 
as an applications software analyst and programmer: 
Work with Onsite and Offshore resources to customize [the petitioner's] internally developed, 
standard, SET-CMM Assessed (Level 5) software development and maintenance process to meet 
project operational requirements 
Conduct Software Configuration Management activities as per SCM Plan established by Project 
Leader 
Perform changes to all configurable items as per TCS' Change Control Procedure, which is 
established by the Project Leader 
Ensure that all design, development, testing, implementation, etc. activities are done as per 
guidelines established in TCS' Quality Management System 
Ensure that all work done (requirements gathering, specifications, development, coding, testing, 
and debugging, etc) meets project operational process requirements and Software Project Plan as 
established by the Project Leader using Project Planning Guidelines, Project Plan Template, 
Software Development Life Cycle Models document, Guidelines for Software Estimation, 
quality manual, etc., which are all available via TCS' PAL, BAL, IPMS, etc. web-based systems 
EAC 02 147 50199 
Page 4 
Participate in Final Inspections, which are conducted before software work items are released to 
client 
Prepare specifications for offshore development 
Upload specifications for offshore development 
Provide technical guidance to offshore resources as required 
Participate in Defects Prevention Activities: Peer Reviews, Causal Analyses Sessions, 
Inspections, etc., as per IPMS, DP Checklist, guidelines for software product quality, project plan 
template, etc., of work product produced onsite and offshore 
Participate in Quantitative Process Management as per QPM established by the Project Leader 
Participate in fortnightly Defects Prevention meetings, as well as on a need basis as required 
As may be required, participate with team to develop software process improvements for areas of 
concern 
In regards to the beneficiary's qualifications, the petitioner further provided that as a prerequisite to 
employment as an applications software analyst and programmer, the petitioner requires a baccalaureate 
degree in computer science, computer information systems or a relevant engineering discipline. An attached 
resume indicated that the beneficiary possesses a Bachelor of Science in "Common Core" and a Masters of 
Computer Applications. During the beneficiary's employment with the foreign company, which began in 
December 1999, he has worked on various projects involving IBM OSl390, SCO UNIX5.0, and PC-AT 
computer systems, and programming languages, such as COBOL, C, C++, PERL, PASCAL, and JAVA 1.2. 
Additionally, the beneficiary participated in three of the foreign company's in-house training programs, 
during which the petitioner claimed he was exposed to the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI) Capability 
Maturity Model for Software (CMM) assessed (Level 5) software development process used by several of the 
foreign company's offshore development centers. 
In a request for evidence, the director noted that the record did not sufficiently establish that the beneficiary 
possessed specialized knowledge. The director requested that the petitioner submit evidence establishing that: 
(1) the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, and not generally known by practitioners in the beneficiary's 
field; (2) the beneficiary is qualified to contribute to the petitioner's knowledge of foreign operating 
conditions as a result of special knowledge not generally found in the industry; (3) the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a capacity involving significant assignments which have advanced the employer's 
productivity, competitiveness, image, or financial position; (4) the beneficiary possesses knowledge that can 
normally be gained only through prior experience with that particular employer; and, (5) the beneficiary 
possesses knowledge of a product or process that cannot be easily transferred to another individual. The 
director further stated that the evidence must substantiate that the beneficiary's advanced level of knowledge 
of the petitioner's processes and procedures distinguishes him from those with only basic knowledge. 
In response, the petitioner's counsel submitted a lengthy statement again asserting that the beneficiary has an 
advanced level of knowledge of the petitioning company's processes and procedures relating to quality 
assurance standards. Counsel gave a detailed description of the beneficiary's work experience and job duties, 
most of which has already been provided above. Specifically, counsel claimed that the beneficiary is one of 
9,500 information technology professionals employed by the petitioner to have received training in the 
company's SEI-CMM Level 5 software development and maintenance processes, including training in fifteen 
EAC 02 147 50199 
Page 5 
key process areas. In regards to the SEI-CMM Level 5 assessed software development and maintenance 
process, counsel explained: 
Level 5 assessment on the Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model is the 
highest and most sought after quality assurance standard in the information technology 
industry worldwide, and [the petitioner] is one of very few firms that have achieved it. The 
project [the beneficiary] has been undertaking in the U.S. requires specialized knowledge of 
[the petitioner's] SEI-CMM Level 5 assessed software development and maintenance process, 
as it is customized to meet the operational requirements of individual projects. 
Additionally, counsel contended that the beneficiary's knowledge, experience, skills, and training differentiate 
him from "that of a typical Applications Software AnalystProgrammer." Counsel further asserted that these 
qualities also satisfy the characteristics of an individual who possesses specialized knowledge, as outlined in a 
1994 Immigration and Naturalization Service (now CIS) memorandum written by the Acting Associate 
Commissioner. 
In his decision, the director concluded that the record did not establish that the beneficiary has been or will be 
employed in a specialized knowledge capacity, as required for classification as an L-1B intracompany 
transferee. Upon reviewing the detailed description of the beneficiary's job responsibilities, the director 
determined that the job duties are not significantly different from those of other applications software analysts 
in computer consulting firms, and do not "warrant the expertise of someone possessing a truly specialized 
knowledge." The director noted that the petitioner's explanation of the beneficiary's duties seemed to merely 
paraphrase the definition of specialized knowledge. The director also concluded that the petitioner had failed 
to document how the beneficiary's knowledge of the processes and procedures of the petitioning organization 
are advanced or substantially different from the knowledge possessed by other applications software analysts 
employed by the petitioner. Finally, the director rema;ked that the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate 
that the beneficiary's knowledge is complex and not generally known by others. Consequently, the director 
denied the petition. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner submitted a brief in which he asserted that the director's denial of the 
petition contradicts prior guidance for interpreting the statutory definition of specialized knowledge. First, 
counsel claimed that legislative history clearly indicates that the specialized knowledge category was not to be 
restricted to those rare employees with unusual knowledge of an organization's exclusive processes and 
techniques. Rather, counsel contended that the classification for intracompany transferees was intended to 
assist foreign companies that were locating to the United States, and would experience difficulty hiring 
personnel familiar with the practices of the company. 
Additionally, counsel asserted that the beneficiary's knowledge of the petitioner's SEI-CMM Level 5 
assessed software development and maintenance process is advanced, as this knowledge is different from that 
generally found in the software sector in the United States and worldwide. In support of this assertion, 
counsel again noted that the petitioning organization had fifteen offshore development centers that have been 
assessed at SEI-CMM Level 5. Level 5, the highest rating, represents an organization whose processes are 
optimized, while a Level 1 rating represents processes that are random. According to counsel, "the SEI-CMM 
is the most sought after assessment of an organization's software quality processes and capabilities." 
EAC 02 147 50199 
Page 6 
Therefore, although the processes used by petitioner are neither exclusive nor proprietary, counsel contended 
that the Level 5 rating establishes that the petitioner "utilizes a software development and maintenance 
process that is not commonly known or utilized in the software industry." 
Counsel further stated that "having established that [the petitioner] utilizes a sophisticated process virtually 
unknown in the software development and maintenance sector in the United States, it is reasonable to assume 
that anyone possessing knowledge of such a process intrinsically possesses advanced knowledge . . . ." (italics 
in original). Counsel acknowledged that the computer hardware and software systems used by the beneficiary 
on assignments is comparatively common in the industry, yet another individual with this knowledge would 
still need significant training in utilizing the petitioner's software process before competently performing the 
duties required for the beneficiary's position. Counsel asserted that it is the beneficiary's combination of 
general and company-specific knowledge that constitutes specialized knowledge, which is not readily 
transferable to another individual. 
Counsel also compared the present case to the facts of another case outlined in a 1994 memorandum written 
by the INS' Acting Associate Commissioner. Counsel claimed that, in the present case, the beneficiary's 
knowledge is consistent with that of the beneficiary identified in the memorandum, as he possesses a 
combination of general knowledge and knowledge of the company's internal procedures, which renders him 
essential to the organization. Therefore, counsel asserted that the beneficiary should be deemed to possess 
specialized knowledge. 
On review, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is employed in a specialized knowledge 
capacity as required in 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1)(3)(ii). 
In examining the specialized knowledge capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a detailed description 
of the services to be performed sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. Id. In the present case, the 
petitioner submitted a list of job duties, which have been outlined above. The petitioner claimed that in order 
to satisfactorily execute these job duties, a minimum of a baccalaureate degree in engineering is required. 
Such a requirement "is consistent with industry standards" and mandated by the complexity of the computer 
systems design methodologies. The petitioner did not indicate that additional education or training would be 
necessary to successfully perform the job responsibilities of an applications software analyst. 
The petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties fails to establish that an individual who possesses 
specialized knowledge is necessary for the position of applications software analyst. Additionally, the 
qualifications necessary for the beneficiary to successfully perform his job as an applications software analyst 
and programmer are nothing more than standard. The petitioner asserted that the one criterion necessary to 
successfully execute the job duties of an applications software analyst is a bachelor's degree in engineering. 
The petitioner further claimed that this is an industry standard. It is thereby a reasonable conclusion that the 
beneficiary's educational background is equivalent to that of other applications software analysts, and that the 
beneficiary's training in SEI-CMM Level 5 processes is not essential to the performance of his job. The 
petitioner has failed to differentiate the beneficiary's knowledge from that of others in the industry. Simply 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
EAC 02 147 50199 
Page 7 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972). 
In addition, counsel asserted on appeal that the beneficiary's knowledge, experience, skills, and training 
differentiate him from "that of a typical Applications Software AnalystIProgrammer." However, counsel 
failed to provide any description of the skills or training of an applications software analyst. The lack of 
evidence in the record makes it impossible to draw a comparison between the two positions, and precludes a 
finding that the beneficiary's knowledge is different from that of a "typical applications software analyst." 
Again, simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, supra. Also, the 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Therefore, the director correctly concluded 
that the beneficiary's job duties do not distinguish the beneficiary from other applications software analysts. 
On appeal, counsel also referred to a 1994 INS memorandum as a guide for interpreting the statutory 
definition of specialized knowledge. Memorandum from James A. Puleo, Acting Associate Commissioner, 
Interpretation of Specialized Knowledge, CO 214L-P (March 9, 1994). In the memorandum, the 
Commissioner noted that specialized knowledge is not limited to knowledge that is proprietary, exclusive or 
unique, but also includes knowledge that is "different from that generally found in [a] particular industry." 
Therefore, counsel emphasized that the beneficiary's training in the petitioner's SEI-CMM Level 5 assessed 
software development and maintenance process establishes that the beneficiary's knowledge is "different 
from that generally found in the software sector not only in the United States but internationally." 
The beneficiary's ability to execute Level 5 assessed software development and maintenance processes does 
not by itself establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is different from that generally found in the industry. 
The Software Engineering Institute is a research and development center that offers, among other things, 
education and training classes organized to aid companies in determining their ability to develop and maintain 
software. See SEI Education and Training, Introduction to the Software CMM, 
http:l/www.sei.cinu.edu/products/courses /info/intro.cmm.html, (last updated Nov. 4, 2003). Because SEI is a 
voluntary training facility, any software company can purchase a report on how to perform software process 
assessments and train its employees in order to receive a Level 5 rating. Although requested by the director, 
counsel failed to provide evidence that the beneficiary possesses knowledge that can normally be gained only 
through prior experience with the petitioning organization. Although it may be difficult for an organization to 
achieve Level 5 status, the knowledge to gain that status is widely available, and likewise "generally found in 
the industry." Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds 
for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). 
Furthermore, counsel essentially asserted that the beneficiary's knowledge is different from that generally 
found in the software sector because of the beneficiary's employment within an organization that elected to 
receive training from SEI. As stated previously, software companies are not obligated to attend training 
provided by SEI. Counsel has failed to provide conclusive evidence establishing that a company that does not 
participate in software process assessment training from SEI does not employ software analysts that possess 
knowledge equivalent to that of the beneficiary. There is no evidence in the record that supports a finding 
that the CMM assessment results published by SEI are indicative of the knowledge processed by all analysts 
EAC 02 147 50199 
Page 8 
in the software industry. In fact, counsel indicated in his brief on appeal that the only organizations assessed 
by SEI are those that actually participate in training and report their results. Therefore, counsel has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary's SEI training alone differentiates his knowledge from that generally found in 
the software sector. 
Moreover, there is no evidence in the record, such as a course certification or a company affidavit, that 
establishes the beneficiary actually received the claimed training. The record contains a list of three training 
courses supposedly completed by the beneficiary, yet fails to explain the content of the courses or, more 
importantly, how these training programs provided the beneficiary with specialized knowledge. Upon further 
review of the record, there is no evidence of the beneficiary completing a training course administered by the 
Software Engineering Institute and involving the Capability Maturity Model for Software. Counsel merely 
asserted that the beneficiary is one of approximately 9,500 information technology professionals to have 
received the SEI-CMM Level 5 training. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, supra; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, supra. Also, simply going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, supra. 
Finally, with regard to counsel's reliance on the 1994 Associate Commissioner's memorandum, the 
memorandum was intended solely as a guide for employees and will not supercede the plain language of the 
statute or the regulations. Although memoranda may be useful as a statement of policy and as an aid in 
interpreting the law, counsel's assertion that the beneficiary's qualifications are analogous to the examples 
outlined in the memorandum is insufficient to establish the beneficiary's qualification for classification as a 
specialized knowledge professional. As discussed, the petitioner has not submitted probative evidence to 
establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished by some unusual 
quality and not generally known in the alien's field of endeavor. 
Counsel also contended on appeal that the legislative history dictates that the specialized knowledge 
classification should not be limited to those "relatively rare employees" of an organization who possess 
unique knowledge of the company's exclusive processes and techniques. Counsel claimed that the L-1 
classification was instead intended to assist companies locating in the United States in transferring their 
present personnel who already had knowledge of its operations. Therefore, counsel asserted that the 
director's decision contradicts the legislative history interpreting the term specialized knowledge. 
While the AAO acknowledges that the specialized knowledge classification is not solely for those "relatively 
rare employees with unusual knowledge," the legislative history for the term "specialized knowledge" 
provides ample support for a restrictive interpretation of the term. In 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. 
Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 1990), the court upheld the denial of an L-1 petition for a chef, where the petitioner claimed 
that the chef possessed specialized knowledge. The court noted that the legislative history demonstrated a 
concern that the L-1 category would become too large: "The class of persons eligible for such nonimmigrant 
visas is narrowly drawn and will be carefully regulated and monitored by the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service." Id. at 16 (citing H.R. REP. No. 91-851, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750, 2754, 1970 WL 5815). The court 
stated, "[Iln light of Congress' intent that the L-1 category should be limited, it was reasonable for the INS to 
conclude that specialized knowledge capacity should not extend to all employees with specialized knowledge. 
On this score, the legislative history provides some guidance: Congress referred to 'key personnel' and 
EAC 02 147 50199 
Page 9 
executives." 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 16. In accordance with the statute and the legislative history, it 
would be inappropriate to expand the visa category to allow the entry of any personnel who already had 
knowledge of a petitioner's operations.' 
If the AAO were to follow counsel's reasoning, then any employee would qualify for a specialized knowledge 
visa if that employee had experience working for a company with special accreditation, such as SEI-CMM 
Level 5. The evidence presented indicates that thirty-seven software engineering firms have attained 
SEI-CMM Level 5 certification. To assert that any employee of these firms should qualify for an L-1B visa 
would fundamentally alter the nature of the visa classification. Such an expansion of the term "specialized 
knowledge" would transform the visa classification from one for aliens with specialized knowledge to one for 
any employee working for an enterprise at the forefront of its field. In short, counsel's interpretation of the 
regulations improperly emphasizes a firm's accreditation rather than an employee's specialized knowledge. 
Furthermore, it should be noted that Congress' 1990 amendments to the Act did not specifically overrule 
1756, Inc. or otherwise mandate a less restrictive interpretation of the term "specialized knowledge." The 
House Report, which accompanied the 1990 amendments, stated: 
One area within the L visa that requires more specificity relates to the term "specialized 
knowledge." Varying interpretations by INS have exacerbated the problem. The bill 
therefore defines specialized knowledge as special knowledge of the company product and its 
application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge of processes and 
procedures of the company. 
H.R. REP. No. 101-723(I), 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6749, 1990 WL 200418. As previously noted, the 
statutory definition states, "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." 8 
U.S.C. $ 11 84(c)(2)(B). 
Prior to the Immigration Act of 1990, the statute did not provide a definition for the term specialized 
knowledge. Instead, the regulations defined the term as follows: 
"Specialized knowledge" means knowledge possessed by an individual whose advanced level 
of expertise and proprietary knowledge of the organization's product, service, research, 
equipment, techniques, management, or other interests of the employer are not readily 
available in the United States labor market. This definition does not apply to persons who 
have general knowledge or expertise which enables them merely to produce a product or 
provide a service. 
Similarly, in Mattev of Penner, the Commissioner emphasized that the specialized knowledge worker 
classification was not intended for "all employees with any level of specialized knowledge." 18 I&N Dec. 49 
(Comm. 1982). According to Matter of Penner, "[sluch a conclusion would permit extremely large numbers 
of persons to qualify for the 'L-1 ' visa" rather than the "key personnel" that Congress specifically intended. 
Id. at 53. 
EAC 02 147 50199 
Page 10 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D)(1990). 
Although the Immigration Act of 1990 provided a statutory definition of the tenn "specialized knowledge," 
Congress did not give any indication that it intended to expand the field of aliens that qualify as possessing 
specialized knowledge. Although the statute omitted the term "proprietary knowledge" that was contained in 
the regulations, the statutory definition still calls for "special knowledge" or an "advanced level of 
knowledge," similar to the original regulation. Despite providing some specificity, neither the 1990 House 
Report nor amendments to the statute indicate that Congress intended to expand the visa category beyond the 
"key personnel" that were originally mentioned in the 1970 House Report. Considered in light of the original 
1970 statute and the 1990 amendments, it is clear that Congress intended for the class of nonimmigrant L-l 
aliens to be narrowly drawn and carefully regulated, and to this end provided a specific statutory definition of 
the tern "specialized knowledge" through the Immigration Act of 1990. 
Finally, it is noted that the statutory definition still requires the AAO to make comparisons in order to 
determine what constitutes specialized knowledge. As observed in 1756, Inc., "[slimply put, specialized 
knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a plain meaning." 745 F. Supp. at 15. The tern 
"specialized knowledge" is relative and cannot be plainly defined. Contrary to counsel's belief that the 
comparison should be between the beneficiary and the industry in general, the comparison cannot be limited 
solely to the general labor market. The Congressional record specifically states that the L-1 category was 
intended for "key personnel." See generally, H.R. REP. No. 91-851, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750. The tern "key 
personnel" denotes a position within the petitioning company that is "of crucial importance." Webster's 11 New 
College Dictionary 605 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 2001). In general, all employees can be reasonably 
considered "important" to a petitioner's enterprise. If an employee did not contribute to the overall economic 
success of an enterprise, there would be no rational reason to employ that person. An employee of "crucial 
importance" or "key personnel" must rise above the level of the petitioner's average employee. Accordingly, 
based on the definition of "specialized knowledge" and the congressional record related to that term, the AAO 
must make comparisons not only between the claimed specialized knowledge employee and the general labor 
market, but also between that employee and the remainder of the petitioner's workforce. Here, the petitioner 
has indicated that the beneficiary is one of 9,500 employees that have received the "specialized knowledge" 
training, out of a total workforce of approximately 19,000 employees. As the petitioner indicates that a 
majority of its workforce possesses "special knowledge" or an "advanced level of knowledge," the AAO must 
conclude that the beneficiary is a highly skilled and productive employee but does not rise to the level of "key 
personnel." 
Counsel's expansive interpretation of the specialized knowledge provision is also objectionable, as it would 
allow virtually any skilled or experienced employee to enter the United States as a specialized knowledge 
worker. In Matter of Penner, the Commissioner discussed the legislative intent behind the creation of the 
specialized knowledge category. 18 I&N Dec. 49 (Comm. 1982). Although the Matter of Penner definition 
of specialized knowledge was superseded by the 1990 Act when the term "proprietary" was omitted, the 
reasoning behind the decision remains applicable to the current matter. The decision noted that the 1970 
House Report, H.R. No. 91-85 1, was silent on the subject of specialized knowledge, but that during the course 
of the sub-committee hearings on the bill, the Chairman specifically questioned witnesses on the level of skill 
necessary to quali@ under the proposed "L" category. In response to the Chairman's questions, various 
EAC 02 147 50199 
Page 11 
witnesses responded that they understood the legislation would allow "high-level people," "experts," 
individuals with "unique" skills, and that it would not include "lower categories" of workers or "skilled craft 
workers." Matter of Penner, supra at 50 (citing H.R. Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. Comm., Immigration Act of 
1970: Hearings on H.R. 445, 9lst Cong. 210, 218, 223, 240, 248 (November 12, 1969)). Reviewing the 
congressional record, the Commissioner concluded that an expansive reading of the specialized knowledge 
provision, such that it would include skilled workers and technicians, is not warranted. For the same 
reasoning, the AAO cannot accept the proposition that any skilled worker is necessarily a specialized 
knowledge worker. 
In the present case, an evaluation of the record revealed that other software companies have achieved an 
SEI-CMM Level 5 rating, that the claimed specialized knowledge is itself freely available on the Internet, and 
that other organizations, although not assessed at a SEI-CMM Level 5, may employ workers with knowledge 
equivalent to that of the beneficiary. It is further noted that the petitioner claims that the beneficiary is one of 
approximately 9,500 information technology professionals to have received the SEI-CMM Level 5 training, 
thereby raising doubts that the beneficiary should be considered "key personnel." Finally, and most 
importantly, the petitioner has failed to document that the beneficiary has actually received the petitioner's 
SEI-CMM Level 5 training, the basis for the beneficiary's claim to specialized knowledge. Thus, as the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary possesses a special knowledge of the petitioner's product or 
an advanced level of knowledge of the company's processes or procedures, the director rationally determined 
that the beneficiary does not qualify as a specialized knowledge worker. 
It is noted that the current petition is for an extension of a L-1B petition that was previously approved by the 
director. If the previous nonimmigrant petition was approved based on the same unsupported assertions that 
are contained in the current record, the approval would constitute clear and gross error on the part of the 
director. The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or 
any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 
1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987); cert denied 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between the court 
of appeals and the district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 
2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 5 1 (2001). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 136 1. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.