dismissed L-1B Case: Insurance Claims

'IC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: WAC 05 800 50348 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 0 1 200% 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 800 50348 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 filed this nonirnmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary in the position of Claims 
Adjustment Specialist as an L-1B nonirnmigrant intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge 
pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 
1 101 (a)(15)Q. The petitioner, a Delaware corporation, claims to be a third party claims administrator. The 
petitioner claims to be an affiliate of the beneficiary's foreign employer, ProcessMind Services Pvt. Ltd., 
located in India. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary for a period of two years. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the position offered to 
the beneficiary requires someone with specialized knowledge or that the beneficiary has such knowledge. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner has satisfied the criteria for establishing that 
the beneficiary is a specialized knowledge employee, and that CIS misapplied current standards set forth in 
section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act and agency memoranda. Counsel for the petitioner states that the 
beneficiary has specialized knowledge because she satisfies the following criteria: 1) the beneficiary 
possesses knowledge that is valuable to the employer's competitiveness in the market place; 2) the beneficiary 
is uniquely qualified to contribute to the United States employer's knowledge of foreign operating conditions; 
3) the beneficiary has been utilized as a key employee abroad and has been given significant assignments 
which have enhanced the employer's productivity, competitiveness, image or financial position; and, 4) the 
beneficiary possesses knowledge, which can be gained only through extensive prior experience with that 
employer. Counsel submits a brief in support of the appeal. 
To establish L-1 eligbility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualifying organization and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(l)(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. 
WAC 05 800 50348 
Page 3 
(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, 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. 
This matter presents two related, but distinct issues: (1) whether the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge; and (2) whether the proposed employment is in a capacity that requires specialized knowledge. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1184(c)(2)(B), provides: 
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. 
The petitioner submitted the nonimmigrant petition on May 17,2005. In a support letter dated May 18,2005, 
the petitioner stated that 'the current duties the beneficiary performs as a team coordinator with the foreign 
company is as follows: 
Beneficiary's duties with [the foreign parent company] include working on the health 
insurance projects with specialization on provider's maintenance and coordination of 
benefits. Beneficiary also investigates, determines liability, confirm coverage, establish 
damages, and negotiate the settlement of the assigned claims. Is responsible for supervising 
the team in conducting investigation on assigned cases, confimn coverage, determine 
liability, establish damages and adjust all types of claims including property, casualty 
insurance and Worker's compensation. Analyzes detailed coverage issues and is responsible 
for complex investigation on litigated and unlitigated cases; reads and understands 
complaints and petitions, insurance contracts and indemnity agreements fiom inception to 
final settlement, including initial investigation of new claims to include recorded statements. 
Provide client with status of claims at quarterly meetings. Monitor medical and legal issues 
of claim files. 
WAC 05 800 50348 
Page 4 
Beneficiary has special experbse in the area of Claims Management with specific reference 
to property and casualty insurance. Has received training on worker's compensation 
Insurance concepts and labor code regulations specific to the California state. Other areas of 
expertise include heath insurance medical claims processing and annuity administration. 
Also has handled the policy owner services in the annuity domain. As stated earlier the 
Beneficiary is our certified Claims Adjuster and as part of the training, [slhe is [sic] been 
taught the following: 
a Worker's Compensation Basics 
Temporary Disability Management 
a Permanent Disability management 
Vocational Rehabilitation 
Cambridge Best Practices 
Medical Record Interpretation 
Claims Investigation 
File Documentation 
Action Plan Quality Initiative 
Reserving Overview 
Recovery 
Medical Disability Management 
Litigation management and Negotiation 
Cambridge WC best Practices 
In addition, the petitioner provided the following description of the duties the beneficiary will perform in the 
proposed position as a claims adjustment specialist in the United States: 
Beneficiary will now being [sic] transferred to United States, where with the specialized 
knowledge of the ProcessMind and Cambridge proprietary methodology to assess claims 
and be responsible for handling the Workers Compensation caseload from inception to final 
settlement, including initial investigation of new claims to include recorded statements. She 
will use the Cambridge proprietary methodology for processing the claims. Provide client 
with status of claims at quarterly meetings. Direct activities of CSR. Monitor medical and 
legal issues of claim files. Other duties as assigned. Use Cambridge proprietary suite 
Cambridge Ovation Business Intelligence Suite and Cambridge Ovation OSHA. 
The petitioner further explains its company methodology as a "comprehensive, well-structured, and expertly 
managed approach to every claim. Our claim professionals communicate clearly with all parties involved 
and continuously monitor and manage all of the issues that can affect the cost of a claim." In addition, the 
petitioner explains: 
Each month, scheduled training are [sic] delivered to key resources around the world who 
were chosen by their management based on specific skill levels, and their accountability 
included the delivery of specific monthly topics to the local Claims Professionals. The 
training topics included Investigation, (including Fraud prevention), Recovery, File 
WAC 05 800 50348 
Page 5 
Evaluation, Medical and Disability Management, Negotiation, and Litigation Management. 
All participants are required to pass a final exam with score of 85% or higher. 
On June 2,2005, the director issued a notice requesting additional evidence in order to adjudicate the petition. 
Specifically, the director requested: (1) a brief description of the proprietary methodology and explain how it 
is different fiom other methodology for processing claims; and, 2) explanation of how the duties the 
beneficiary performed abroad and those she will perform in the United States are different or unique fiom 
those of other workers employed by the petitioner or other U.S. employers in tIus type of position. 
In response, counsel for the petitioner submitted a letter, dated July 6, 2005, responding to the director's 
request. In response to the director's request for a description of the proprietary methodology utilized by the 
petitioner, counsel for the petitioner focused on the company's training process that the beneficiary 
completed. Counsel for the petitioner asserted the following [emphasis omitted]: 
Beneficiary has successfully completed the Adjuster Training Professional Development 
Program and Phase Training Development Program. 
These trainings are aimed at training the participants as a Claims and specifically workman 
compensation claim Specialist using Cambridge proprietary methodology and tools. It helps 
participant acquire in depth theoretical and practical knowledge of the management and 
administration of the Claims with special emphasis on the specialized workmen 
compensations claims by the third parties. They learn to handle such claims right fiom 
origination to final negotiations and adjudication using the company's proprietary tools and 
methodology. The skills gained by the participant in the training include Temporary 
Disability Management, Permanent Disability management, Vocational Rehabilitation, 
Cambridge Best Practices, Medical Record Interpretation, Claims Investigation, File 
Documentation, Action Plan Quality Initiative, Reserving, Recovery, Medical Disability 
Management, Litigation management and Negotiation, Worker's Compensation regulations 
and laws, training on Cambridge proprietary suite Cambridge Ovation Business Intelligence 
Suite and Cambridge Ovation OSHA and Cambridge WC best Practices. 
Cambridge has developed a user-fhendly system known as the Cambridge Ovation Business 
Intelligence Suite, specifically for clients who want a sophisticated tool for consolidating and 
managing their claim and risk exposure data. It is a web-based application that gives clients 
access to details of the individual claims, view monthly loss runs and create indwidualized 
reports, all of which can be saved and updated automatically. 
Cambridge Ovation OSHA, is the company's proprietary online recordkeeping system. This 
increases administrative efficiency by dramatically reducing the time spent on manual 
recordkeeping and increasing information accuracy by virtually eliminating date 
transcription errors. It ensures that the clients of the company are compliant with the 
required regulations. Because Ovation OSHA is integrated with the Cambridge Ovation 
business intelligence system, it helps populate the required OSHA recordkeeping forms. 
WAC 05 800 50348 
Page 6 
The petitioner did not submit an explanation of how the duties the beneficiary performed abroad and those 
she will perform in the United States are different or unique fiom those of other workers employed by the 
petitioner or other U.S. employers in this type of position as requested by the director. 
On July 21, 2005, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the 
position of claims adjustment specialist requires someone with specialized knowledge, or that the beneficiary 
has such knowledge. The director noted that the petitioner did not demonstrate that the petitioner's processes 
and procedures are significantly different &om the methods generally used by other claims service providers. 
The director also stated that the duties to be performed by the beneficiary. "are essentially those of a claims 
adjustor." 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner reiterates the job duties to be performed by the beneficiary in the United 
States, and asserts that the position requires specialized knowledge in order to successfully perform the duties 
required of the position. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has satisfied the factors utilized to 
determine specialized knowledge as outlined in a legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
memoranda. See Memorandum fiom Acting Exec. Assoc. Comm., INS, Interpretation of 
- 
Special Knowledge (March 9, 199l)(hereinafter memorandum"). Specifically, counsel asserts that the 
beneficiary meets the requirements set forth in thememorandum in that she possesses (1) knowledge 
valuable for competitiveness; (2) unusual knowledge of foreign operating conditions; (3) experience with 
significant assignments abroad that were beneficial to the employer; and (4) knowledge that can only be 
gained with the employer or which can not be easily transferred. Counsel further emphasizes that according 
to the Puleo memorandum, the petitioner is not required to establish that the claimed specialized knowledge 
is narrowly held within the company or the United States labor market. 
On review, the record as presently constituted is not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has been 
employed in a specialized knowledge position or that the beneficiary is to perform a job requiring specialized 
knowledge in the proffered U.S. position. 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. $ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
The petitioner must submit a detailed job description of the services to be performed sufficient to establish 
specialized knowledge. 
Although the petitioner repeatedly asserts that the beneficiary's proposed U.S. position requires specialized 
knowledge, the petitioner has not adequately articulated sufficient basis to support this claim. Although the 
petitioner has provided a detailed description of the beneficiary's proposed responsibilities as a claims 
adjustment specialist, the description does not mention the application of any special or advanced body of 
knowledge which would distinguish the beneficiary's role from that of other claim adjustors employed by the 
petitioner or the insurance industry at large. Going on record without documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceehngs. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Cornrn. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dee. 190 (Reg. Comrn. 1972)). Based 
upon the lack of supporting evidence, the AAO cannot determine whether the U.S. position requires someone 
who possesses knowledge that rises to the level of specialized knowledge as defined at 8 C.F.R. 
3 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
WAC 05 800 50348 
Page 7 
More specifically, whle the petitioner has repeatedly asserted that the beneficiary was trained in using the 
"Cambridge proprietary methodology and tools," the petitioner does not establish that the beneficiary is one 
of the few employees of the company that obtained this knowledge, or that she is entering the Untied States in 
order to train U.S. employees on the business processes, procedures and methods of operation that are unique 
and proprietary to the company. According to the letter dated July 6, 2005, counsel for the petitioner asserts 
that the foreign company will become "an extension of the onsite [US. company] team because both of them 
work on the same claims/client that are remotely connected through a virtual private network." Thus, the 
beneficiary has the same training with the U.S. company's methodologies which is practiced by all employees 
in the United States company. In addition, there is no evidence in the record that the beneficiary actually 
participated in the development of such methodologies and processes that might lead to the conclusion that 
her level of knowledge is comparatively "advanced." In fact, it appears that most of the employees of the 
petitioning company must complete training in the petitioner's methodology. Again, simply going on record 
without documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Malter of SoJJii, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
In addition, contrary to the assertions of counsel and the petitioner, there is no evidence on record to 
suggest that the computer systems used by the petitioner, the Cambridge Ovation Business Intelligence 
Suite and Cambridge Ovation OSHA, are different from those applied by any claims adjustment provider. 
While individual companies will develop a computer system tailored to its own needs and internal quality 
processes, it has not been established that there would be substantial differences such that knowledge of 
the petitioning company's processes and quality standards would amount to "specialized knowledge." 
In addition, there is no evidence in the record that the beneficiary has received specific in-house training 
that would have imparted her with the claimed "advanced" knowledge of the company's processes, 
procedures and methodologies. In the petition, the petitioner explained that the beneficiary received nine 
months of in-house training and completed the "adjuster training professional development program" and 
the "phase training development program." It appears that the beneficiary completed her training on 
March 31, 2005. According to the "claims management phase training overview from the professional 
development team" submitted with the petition, the petitioner explains the Phase training and states that 
"each month, scheduled training was delivered to approximately 80 'Training Champions' nation-wide. 
Champions were chosen by their management based on specific skill levels, and their accountability 
included." In addition, it states that the goal of the company is to "follow-up with the developer of 'Phase' 
training over the next six months to approximately 800 claims professionals." Thus, according to this 
sheet, each month approximately 80 employees received the Phase training, and eventually the company 
wanted to provide this training to approximately 800 employees. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner 
states: "The goal [of training 800 employees] was never achieved and the training referred to in this goal 
was general training not the specific proprietary training which the beneficiary underwent." Although 
counsel argues that there are two types of training, a general training and a specific proprietary training, 
nothing in the documentation supports this claim. The beneficiary completed the "phase training 
development program" which appears to be the same program discussed in the "claims management 
phase training overview from the professional development team" as discussed above. It is incumbent 
upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any 
attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits 
WAC 05 800 50348 
Page 8 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 
(BIA 1988). 
The AAO does not dispute the likelihood that the beneficiary is an experienced claims specialist who 
understands claims and is able to apply it within the context of the petitioner's specific environment. 
However, it is appropriate for the AAO to look beyond the stated job duties and consider the importance of 
the beneficiary's knowledge of the business's product or service, management operations or decision-making 
process. Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. 117, 120 (Comm. 198l)(citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. 
618(R.C. 1970) and Matter of LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 816 (R.C. 1971)).' As stated by the Commissioner in 
Matter of Penner, when considering whether the beneficiaries possessed specialized knowledge, "the 
LeBlanc and Raulin decisions did not find that the occupations inherently qualified the beneficiaries for the 
classifications sought." 18 I&N Dec. at 52. Rather, the beneficiaries were considered to have unusual duties, 
skills, or knowledge beyond that of a skilled worker. Id. The Commissioner also provided the following 
clarification: 
A distinction can be made between a person whose slalls and knowledge enable him or her 
to produce a product through physical or skilled labor and the person who is employed 
primarily for his ability to carry out a key process or function which is important or essential 
to the business firm's operation. 
Id. at 53. 
It should be noted that the statutory definition of specialized knowledge requires the AAO to make 
comparisons in order to determine what constitutes specialized knowledge. The term "specialized 
knowledge" is not an absolute concept and cannot be clearly defmed. As observed in 1756, Inc. v. Attorney 
General, "[slimply put, specialized knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a plain meaning." 745 
F. Supp. at 15. 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 term "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 reasonably be considered 
' Although the cited precedents pre-date the current statutory definition of "specialized knowledge," the 
AAO finds them instructive. Other than deleting the former requirement that specialized knowledge had 
to be "proprietary," the 1990 Act did not significantly alter the definition of "specialized knowledge" 
from the prior INS interpretation of the term. The 1990 Committee Report does not reject, criticize, or 
even refer to any specific INS regulation or precedent decision interpreting the term. The Committee 
Report simply states that the Committee was recommending a statutory definition because of "[vlarying 
[i.e. not specifically incorrect] interpretations by INS," H.R. Rep. No. 101-723(I), at 69, 1990 
U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6749. Beyond that, the Committee Report simply restates the tautology that became 
section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Id. The AAO concludes, therefore, that the cited cases remain useful 
guidance concerning the intended scope of the "specialized knowledge" L-1B classification. The AAO 
supports its use of Matter of Penner, as well in offering guidance interpreting "specialized knowledge." 
Again, the Committee Report does not reject the interpretation of specialized knowledge offered in 
Matter of Penner. 
WAC 05 800 50348 
Page 9 
"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 economic 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 the employee and the remainder of the petitioner's workforce. While 
it may be correct to say that the beneficiary in the instant case is a highly skilled and productive employee, 
this fact alone is not enough to bring the beneficiary to the level of "key personnel." In addition, it appears 
that the beneficiary commenced her employment with the foreign company in June 2003 and only recently 
completed the specific in-house training on March 31, 2004, only two months prior to filing the instant 
petition. It is implausible that the beneficiary was a "key personnel" for the foreign company when she had 
been employed with the foreign company for two years and completed her in-house training two months 
prior to filling the instant petition. Furthermore, even if the beneficiary obtained the required specialized 
knowledge upon completion of the in-house training, the beneficiary was not employed in a specialized 
knowledge position for one year prior to filing the instant petition. Thus, the evidence does not establish the 
beneficiary's one year of qualifying employment abroad. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~). 
Moreover, 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). The decision noted that the 1970 House 
Report, H.R. No. 91-851, stated that the number of admissions under the L-1 classification "will not be large" 
and that "[tlhe class of persons eligible for such nonimmigrant visas is narrowly drawn and will be carefully 
regulated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service." Id. at 5 1. The decision further noted that the House 
Report 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 qualify 
under the proposed "L'' category. In response to the Chairman's questions, various 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, id. 
At 50 (citing H.R. Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. Comm., Immigration Act of 1970: Hearings on H.R. 445, 9lSt 
Cong. 2 10,2 18,223,240,248 (November 12,1969)). 
Reviewing the Congressional record, the Commissioner concluded in Matter of Penner that an expansive 
reading of the specialized knowledge provision, such that it would include skilled workers and technicians, is 
not warranted. The Commissioner emphasized that the specialized knowledge worker classification was not 
intended for "all employees with any level of specialized knowledge." Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 53. 
Or, as noted in Matter of Colley, "[m]ost employees today are specialists and have been trained and given 
specialized knowledge. However, in view of the House Report, it can not be concluded that all employees 
with specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are eligible for classification as 
intracompany transferees." 18 I&N Dec. at 119. According to Matter of Penner, "[sluch a conclusion would 
permit extremely large numbers of persons to qualifL for the 'L-1' visa" rather than the "key personnel" that 
Congress specifically intended. 18 I&N Dec. at 53; see also, 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. at 
15 (concluding that Congress did not intend for the specialized knowledge capacity to extend to all 
employees with specialized knowledge, but rather to "key personnel" and "executives.") 
WAC 05 800 50348 
Page 10 
Further, although counsel correctly states that the L-IB visa classification does not require a test of the U.S. 
labor market for available workers, CIS is permitted to compare the beneficiary's knowledge to the general 
United States labor market and the petitioner's workforce in order to distinguish between specialized and 
general knowledge. The Associate Commissioner notes in the Puleo memorandum cited by counsel that 
"officers adjudicating petitions involving specialized knowledge must ensure that the knowledge possessed 
by the beneficiary is not general knowledge held commonly throughout the industry but that it is truly 
specialized." Memo, Supra. A comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge to the knowledge possessed by 
others in the field is therefore necessary in order to determine the level of the beneficiary's skills and 
knowledge and to ascertain whether the beneficiary's knowledge is advanced. In other words, absent an 
outside group to which to compare the beneficiary's knowledge, CIS would not be able to "ensure that the 
knowledge possessed by the beneficiary is truly specialized." Id. The analysis for specialized knowledge 
therefore requires a test of the knowledge possessed by the United States labor market, but does not consider 
whether workers are available in the United States to perform the beneficiary's job duties. 
Furthermore, in the request for evidence, the director instructed the petitioner to submit evidence of how 
the beneficiary's knowledge differs from the knowledge held by similarly employed individuals within 
the company and within the labor market. The petitioner failed to submit this documentation in its 
response. Without this information, the AAO has no basis to compare the beneficiary's knowledge to that 
of other workers within the company, and therefore it cannot be concluded that his knowledge is "special" 
or "advanced." There is no indication that the beneficiary has any knowledge that exceeds that of any 
experienced claims adjustor, or that she has received special training in the company's methodologies or 
processes which would separate her from any other similarly employed worker with the foreign company. 
Moreover, notwithstanding the lack of documentation, the petitioner still failed to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary's knowledge is more than the knowledge held by a skilled worker. See Matter of Penner, 18 
I&N Dec. at 52. 
The record does not distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge as more advanced or special than the knowledge 
possessed by other claims adjustors. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has been trained 
in and has participated in developing proprietary methodologies for the petitioner. The beneficiary is claimed 
to have "advanced" knowledge of the company's business processes, procedures and methodologies, as well 
as "specialized knowledge" in the intricate methodologies created by and utilized by the company. However, 
as the petitioner has failed to document the purported knowledge, these claims are not persuasive. 
Again, the AAO does not dispute that the petitioner's organization, like any claims provider, has its own 
internal information systems processes and methodologies. However, there is no evidence in the record to 
establish that the beneficiary's knowledge of these systems processes and methodologies is particularly 
advanced in comparison to her peers, that the processes themselves cannot be easily transferred to its U.S. 
employees or to professionals who have not previously worked with the organization, that the U.S.-based 
staff does not actually possess the same knowledge, or that the U.S. position offered actually requires 
someone with the claimed "advanced knowledge." The petitioner has simply submitted no documentary 
evidence in support of its assertions or counsel's assertions that the beneficiary's skills and knowledge of the 
foreign entity's processes, procedures and methodologies would differentiate her from any other similarly 
employed claims adjustors within the petitioner's group or withn the industry. Simply going on record 
WAC 05 800 50348 
Page 11 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
In addition, counsel's reliance on the Puleo memorandum is misplaced. It is noted that the memoranda were 
intended solely as a guide for employees and will not supersede the plain language of the statute or 
regulations. Therefore, by itself, counsel's assertion that the beneficiary's qualifications are analogous to the 
examples outlined in the memoranda is insufficient to establish the beneficiary's qualification for 
classification as a specialized knowledge professional. While the factors discussed in the memorandum may 
be considered, the regulations specifically require that the beneficiary possess an "advanced level of 
knowledge" of the organization's processes and procedures, or a "special knowledge" of the petitioner's 
product, service, research, equipment, techniques or management. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)@). As 
discussed above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's knowledge rises to the level of 
specialized knowledge contemplated by the regulations. 
In sum, the beneficiary's duties and technical skills, while impressive, demonstrate knowledge that is 
common among claims adjustor professionals working in the beneficiary's specialty in the claims adjustment 
field. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's training, work experience, or knowledge 
of the company's processes is more advanced than the knowledge possessed by others employed by the 
petitioner, or that the processes and systems used by the petitioner are substantially different f?om those used 
by other large claims providers. The AAO does not dispute the fact that the beneficiary's knowledge has 
allowed her to successllly perform her job duties for the foreign entity. However, the successful completion 
of one's job duties does not distinguish the beneficiary as possessing special or advanced knowledge or as a 
"key personnel," nor does it establish employment in a specialized knowledge capacity. 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 beneficiary's field of 
endeavor, or that her knowledge is advanced compared to the knowledge held by other similarly employed 
workers within the petitioner and the foreign entity. 
The legislative history of the term "specialized knowledge7' provides ample support for a restrictive 
interpretation of the term. In the present matter, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
should be considered a member of the "narrowly drawn" class of individuals possessing specialized 
knowledge. See I 7.56, Inc. v. Attorney General, supra at 16. Based on the evidence presented, it is concluded 
that the beneficiary has not been employed abroad and would not be employed in the United States in a 
capacity involving specialized knowledge. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
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. § 136 1. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.