dismissed L-1B Case: Lumber Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-F-P- LTD. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 12.2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an importer and exporter of lumber, claims to be a new office' and seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its "Executive Manager" under the L-1 B nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. 2 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lB classification allows a corporation or other 
legal entity (including its atliliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee with 
"specialized knowledge'' to work temporarily in the United States. 
The Director ofthe Vermont Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, the following: (1) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's employer abroad; (2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial, executive. 
or specialized knowledge capacity; (3) the Beneficiary would be employed in a specialized 
knowledge capacity; and ( 4) that it secured sufficient physical premises to house its new office. 3 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the denial, asserting that it previously provided documents that 
establish the existence of a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's 
employer abroad. The Petitioner also argues that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would 
be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. Lastly. the Petitioner 
provides evidence to support the contention that the Director's conclusion regarding the issue of 
physical premises was incorrect. 
1 
The tenn "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)( I )(ii)(F). Although the Petitioner filed the petition on October 14. 2015, the record contains 
numerous business invoices that identify the Petitioner as either a seller or purchaser and that date back to 2013. thereby 
indicating that the Petitioner had been doing business for over one year at the time the petition was filed. As the 
Petitioner's new office claim does not affect our analysis of the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge capacity, we will 
not further address the Petitioner's new office claim. 
2 Neither the petition nor the supporting cover letter states the position title for the Beneficiary's proposed position. 
However, the organizational chart that was included in the Petitioner's business plan identifies the Beneficiary's 
proposed position and his current position abroad, as that of "Executive Manager.'' We note that the "Daily operations'' 
section of the business plan states that the Beneficiary's current position in Brazil is that of"Export Sales Manager." 
3 The petition was originally denied in April 2016. The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen and reconsider, which was 
granted, and the Director issued a new decision denying the petition on the grounds listed above. 
.
Matter~~ V-F-P- Ltd. 
Upon de novo review , we find that the record does not support the Director's conclusion regarding 
the Petitioner's business premises and we will therefore withdraw that conclusion. Notwithstanding 
our withdrawal of one of the Director's findings, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence 
to establish that it had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad at the time 
the petition was filed or that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he has been 
and would be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. We will therefore 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 
admission into the United States. Section 10l(a)(15)(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. Jd. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary 's prior education, training, and employment qualifies him or 
her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 ). 
A beneficiary is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to 
a company if the beneficiary 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. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). 
Specialized knowledge is defined as 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner stated that its purpose for opening and operating a business in the United States is to 
import and sell South American lumber to U.S. customers for use in residential and commercial 
building projects. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary is currently employed abroad as an 
"Executive Manager " with 
an exporter of sustainable tropical wood, in a position that involves the following : 
managing and coordinating sales for exporting tropical hardwood products; planning and controlling 
"the commercial area"; identifying international business opportunities and making plans to 
"participate in global markets"; helping set the production schedule; engaging in contract proposals 
within the scope of applicable legislation and international commerce; forging business 
relationships; researching and defining ''international action plans"; developing logistics for and 
initiating the import-export process; determining the means of transporting the products; and actively 
participating in "international business affairs ." 
2 
.
Matter of V-F-P- Ltd. 
The Petitioner stated that the purpose of transferring the Beneficiary to the United States is to have 
him "identify customers, competitors, and marketing strategies to maximize the market share" in the 
South American lumber market. It stated that the Beneficiary would also be responsible for making 
long-term goals, establishing working capital needs and human resources, and developing new 
products within the scope of the business plan. A letter from the Beneficiary's foreign employer 
states that he was hired "because of his vast and extraordinary experience in the wood business " and 
indicated that the Beneficiary 's positon abroad is comprised of four elements - forest planning. 
administration, production , and sales. 
Ill. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, a petitioner must show 
that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e., 
one entity with "branch" offices), or that they are related as a "parent and subsidiary " or as 
"affiliates." See generally section 10 I (a)( 15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1). 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be 
examined in determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between the foreign and U.S. 
entities for purposes of this visa classification. See Matter (?l Church Scientology lnt 'l, 19 l&N Dec. 
593 (BIA 1988); see also Matter C?lSiemens Med. Sys .. Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Maller of 
Hughes , 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). In the context of this visa petition, ownership refers to 
the direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority 
to control; control means the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, 
management, and operations of an entity. Matter qj"Church Scientology Int '/, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
The Petitioner indicated on the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that the Petitioner 
materialized as a result of a joint venture and that the Petitioner is "53.75% Brazilian owned" and 
"46.25% Belgium owned." The Petitioner identified a Brazilian entity, and 
a Belgium entity, as its "co-parent" companies ; however, it did not reveal each 
entity's specific percentage of ownership interest in the U.S. entity : Further. in a 2014 shareholder 
agreement, which documented changes to the Petitioner's name and ownership , three owners were 
identified - (1) the Belgian entity, (2) the Brazilian entity, and (3) an individual identified as 
An ownership breakdown at section 4.1 of the agreement indicates that 
each ofthe two entities owns 46.25% of the Petitioner while owns the remaining 7.5%. 
In two requests for evidence (RFEs), the Director notified the Petitioner that the record did not 
establish that a qualifying relationship exists between it and In the first RFE, the 
Director specifically noted that the shareholder agreement did not contain information about a joint 
venture and observed that the record did not include stock certificates or a stock ledger. In the 
3 
.
Matter of V-F-P- Ltd. 
second RFE, the Director observed that the record did not show that the same individual who owns 
the majority of the foreign entity also owns the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner's responses contained corporate documents that included minutes of a board of 
directors meeting, a share subscription, stock certificates, and a record of stock issued. These 
documents show that originally O\\'Jled 100% of the Petitioner's stock ( 10,000 shares). 
The Petitioner also provided a copy of a stockholder's agreement, a stock purchase agreement, and a 
stock transfer ledger, \'v'hich document 2014 sale of 53.75% of its stock in the 
Petitioner. This sale resulted in the Belgian entity acquiring 4,625 shares of the Petitioner's stock 
and acquiring 750 shares, thereby leaving with 4,625 shares. i.e., less 
than a majority. The stock transfer ledger also reflects changes to the Petitioner's ownership in 2016 
when surrendered 475 shares in a stock transfer, which resulted m 
acquiring a total of 5,100 shares, i.e., a 51% majority ownership interest. 
In the 2017 denial decision, the Director acknowledged the 2016 stock redistribution, but found that 
the parent-subsidiary relationship between the Beneficiary's foreign employer and the Petitioner was 
not created until a.fier the instant petition was filed.4 The Director determined that while the newly 
created qualifying relationship can be considered in determining eligibility in a future Form 1-129 
filing(s), it could not serve to overcome the denial in the instant matter, where the ownership scheme 
that resulted in a qualifying relationship did not exist at the time the instant petition was tiled. 
5 
Citing ]~fatter of Tessel, Inc., 17 I&N Dec. 631 (Acting Assoc. Comm 'r 1981 ), on appeal, the 
Petitioner contends that "the two Brazilian individuals together" owned the majority of its stock and 
it "is eligible to an exception.'' The Petitioner does not clarify the type of "exception" it believes this 
situation warrants, nor does it explain how the cited case applies to the facts in this matter. In the 
Tessel decision, the beneficiary solely owned 93% of the foreign entity and 60% of the petitioner 
establishing a "high percentage of common ownership and common management.'' In other words. 
a single individual owned the majority shares of both entities. The same cannot be said of the 
ownership of the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer at the time the petition \:vas filed. 
The Tessel decision further stated that "[v,r]here there is a high percentage of ownership and common 
management between two companies, either directly or indirectly or through a third entity. those 
companies are 'affiliated' within the meaning of that term as used in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Act." /d. at 633. The facts in this case are not analogous to those in Tessel as the Petitioner does not 
claim now, nor did it previously claim, that it had an aftiliate or parent-subsidiary relationship with 
4 
As noted above, the petition was filed on October 14, 2015. 
5 The new ownership scheme that was created in 20 16 does not establish that contro Is the Petitioner, as 
there is no evidence to show that the management scheme created in the 20 14 stockholders· agreement, which we wi II 
discuss in greater detail below, was altered in such a way as to give governing control of the 
U.S. entity , despite his indirect majority ownership of the U.S. entity. In any future tiling where a qualifying relation ship 
is a prerequisite for eligibility , the Petitioner should establish that not only owns, but also controls the U.S. 
entity in order to establish that the Petitioner meets the definition of the term subsidiary. See 8 C. F.R. 
§ 214 .2(l)(l)(ii)(K). 
4 
.
Matter of V-F-P- Ltd. 
the Beneficiary's foreign employer at the time of filing. Rather, the Petitioner checked off the box 
for "joint venture" when filling out the petition, even though it did not specify how the facts in the 
matter establish the existence of a joint venture. 
The Petitioner also argues that owner of the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer, "holds management control" of the U.S. entity, pointing to the Petitioner's by-la\vs and 
the 2014 shareholder's agreement to support this claim. However, the contents of these documents 
do not support the claim that owns and controls the Petitioner. Namely, "Article Four" 
of the Petitioner's by-laws, titled "Directors," states the following: 
4.1 Subject to these By-Laws, or any lmvfitl agreement between the Shareholders, 
the full and entire management of the affairs and business of the Corporation shall be 
vested in the Board of Directors, which shall have and may execute all of the powers 
that may be exercised or performed by the Corporation." 
(emphasis added). The above prong of the by-laws expressly gives the power to control the 
Petitioner to its shareholders. While the Petitioner originally only had one shareholder - the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer - by the time this petition was filed, the Petitioner had three 
shareholders, who, based on the terms of Article 5 of the 2014 shareholder's agreement, were each 
"entitled to appoint one ( 1) Director" to sit on the board of directors, which would manage and 
control "[t]he business and affairs of the Company.'' Thus, neither the by-la\vs nor the shareholder's 
agreement, \Vhich changed the Petitioner's ownership in 2014, gave control of the U.S. 
entity as the Petitioner claims. 
Without the requisite degree of common ownership and control at the time of filing, we cannot 
conclude that the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer had a qualifying relationship. 
IV. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
Next, we will determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge and whether he has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the United States, in 
a specialized knowledge capacity. If the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knmvledge, then we cannot conclude that he has been employed abroad in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: (1) a "special" knowledge 
of the company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" level of 
knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. A 
petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneticiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition. 
6 
The Petitioner also refers to as 
.
Matter of V-F-P- Ltd. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and 
type of evidence which establishes whether or not the beneficiary actually possesses specialized 
knowledge. We cannot make a factual determination regarding a given beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of its 
products and services or processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field 
involved, and the nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how 
such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the 
individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
A. Special Knowledge 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has "special knowledge" of its "specific product, 
production, and international marketing" concerning the "logistical factors" including "the complex 
production run schedules" involved in harvesting "sustainable ' ' in the Brazilian 
Rain Forest and ensuring continued delivery of the finished product to U.S. customers. The 
Petitioner further states that the Beneficiary has "unique knowledge regarding the research, 
equipment, techniques, and their application in international markets" that is different when 
compared to others in the industry. The Petitioner, however, does not identify a specific product or 
specify any research, equipment, or technique of which the Beneficiary has knowledge and which is 
different when compared to the research, equipment, or techniques used within the industry. 
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. Knowledge that is 
commonly held throughout a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to 
another is not considered specialized. 
The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary has a "comprehensive overview of commercial 
commerce and extensive experience in foreign trade," which he uses to identify business 
opportunities, develop negotiating strategies, evaluate buyers' strengths and weaknesses,"[ d]rive the 
selling process," represent the company at industry events, and minimize freight costs through 
negotiation. The Petitioner also pointed to several of the Beneficiary's positive work attributes, 
including "strategic visions,'' a sense of commitment and dedication, and the ability to "work 
effectively with cross functional teams," and emphasized that the Beneficiary is multilingual and 
"conversant in the international logistical terminology" used in moving cargo. The Petitioner 
claimed that "[t]hese attributes are cumulative and gained ... over [the Beneficiary's] twenty-four 
(24) years in the international sales and management field." The Petitioner did not identify the steps 
taken to gain 
the "special knowledge'' it claims the Beneficiary possesses. 
.
Matter <if V-F-P- Ltd. 
The Petitioner also addressed the Beneficiary's proposed position, stating that the purpose of 
transferring the Beneficiary to the United States is to have him "identify customers, competitors, and 
marketing strategies to maximize the market share" in the South American lumber market. 
7 
It stated 
that the Beneficiary would also be responsible for making long-term goals, establishing working 
capital needs and human resources , and developing new products within the scope of the business 
plan. The Petitioner did not explain how any of these attributes support the claim that the 
Beneficiary has "special knowledge" of the foreign employer's product - South American tropical 
lumber- and its application in international markets. 
In an RFE, the Director informed the Petitioner that the brief job description of the Beneficiary ' s 
foreign employment did not establish that the Beneficiary's job duties required specialized 
knowledge. The Director noted that the Petitioner did not provide information about the product in 
which the Beneficiary is claimed to have specialized knowledge or establish how the Beneficiary 
gained specialized knowledge during his employment with the foreign entity. The Director also 
noted that the record does not contain information about any training the Beneficiary may have had 
during his employment with the foreign entity or establish the type and length of training required 
for someone in the industry to attain the Beneficiary 's level of knowledge. The Director provided a 
list of factors that we consider to determine whether a beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge , 
including the following items: (1) whether the knowledge is generally found within the industry; (2) 
the type of training or prior experience required to attain the knowledge; (3) the ease with which the 
knowledge can be passed on to another employee; (4) the number of employees within the 
organization that received similar training as the Beneficiary; and (5) or ways in which the 
Beneficiary's training differs from that of other employees within the same organization. 
In response , the Petitioner provided a letter from its president describing the products and services 
that provides and that the U.S. company intends to provide . The president explained 
that forest planning involves harvest planning, forest management and contracting and logistics 
related to forest operations. He also discussed production, which involves working with the 
company's operational and production management to help plan production schedules, selecting and 
buying raw materials, and setting quality control standards. 
The Petitioner's president also addressed the sales and administration components of the 
Beneficiary 's position. He claimed that in order to sell the company ' s products , the Beneficiary 
"must have the knowledge . .. of the wood species that we commercialize '· and in order to help with 
administration, the Beneficiary must have "a thorough understanding of the departments " within the 
company. He stated that the sales component involves determining which products to sell and 
pricing those products, attending and presiding over sales meetings , traveling to make sales calls, 
hiring and training sales representatives, and setting sales goals, while the administration component 
requires "making sure that our business runs well.'' The president clarified that in executing the 
7 
The Petitioner did not provide a position title for the Beneficiary either in the petition or in the initial supporting 
statement and referred to the Beneficiary as "Beneficiary/Transferee.'" The position title of ·'Executive Manager'" was 
assigned to the Beneficiary's position in a supporting organizational chart. 
.
Matter of V-F-P- Ltd. 
administration component in his proposed position, the Beneficiary will develop and implement 
"high-level strategies" and make "major corporate decisions" in the course of "managing the 
[Petitioner's] overall operations." 
With respect to the Beneficiary's training, the Petitioner provided three certificates of participation 
reflecting the Beneficiary's completions of three courses that predate the Beneficiary's current 
employment with the foreign entity. The record also contains a statement from another entity --
- indicating that the Beneficiary was its sales manager 
from September 2005 to August 2008 during which time he "participated in professional training in 
our industries and forest units, with satisfactory approval." The Petitioner did not state whether or 
how these prior course completions are relevant to the specialized knowledge the Beneficiary is now 
claimed to have with respect to the products he sells for his current employer. 
In addition, the record contains two other training certificates that were submitted in support of the 
Petitioner's prior motion before the Vermont Service Center. The certificates show that the 
Beneficiary completed a 40-hour course in forest and operational planning and a 50-hour training 
course in the industrial wood production process in June 2013, immediately after he assumed his 
position with As the Petitioner has not articulated the process for gaining the 
specialized knowledge it claims the Beneficiary possesses, it is unclear how he acquired his 
knowledge nor is there evidence to show that the courses he completed when he started working for 
are related to his claimed specialized knowledge. 
In the denial decision, the Director stated that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's sales and marketing duties are significantly different from those of other corporate 
office managers and sales representatives. The Director further noted that the Beneficiary's 
educational credentials are not unique to the Petitioner's organization or to the lumber import-export 
industry and properly determined that the record does not establish that the foreign and proposed 
positions require "special" knowledge of the organization's product, service, research, equipment, or 
technique. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a specialized 
knowledge employee consistent with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Policy 
Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-1 B Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/ 
laws/policy-memoranda. It states that the Beneficiary has "government certifications" and the 
specialized knowledge to work in the strictly regulated Brazilian hardwood industry. 
However, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses knowledge that is special. While the Beneficiary may be filling a role that is beneficial to 
the Petitioner's competitiveness in the marketplace, this characteristic alone is not probative of his 
specialized knowledge. As noted in the memorandum, the "characteristics'' listed by the Petitioner 
are only "factors that USCIS may consider when determining whether a beneficiary's knowledge is 
specialized." !d. The memorandum emphasizes that "ultimately, it is the weight and type of 
evidence that establishes whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge." !d. at 13. Here, 
.
Matter of V-F-P- Ltd. 
the Petitioner focuses on the complexities in the industry in which the Beneficiary works, but does 
not point to a specific product or service of which the Beneficiary has special knowledge or 
distinguish his knowledge of the Brazilian hardwood industry as uncommon in comparison to the 
knowledge of other similarly employed individuals in the same industry. 
While the record shows that the Beneficiary has undergone some training with his current foreign 
employer, there is no evidence to suggest that the Beneficiary was offered such training as a path to 
gaining special knowledge of the company's product or service or that such training was uncommon 
among employees like the Beneficiary within the industry. As previously stated, there is no nexus 
between any of the Beneficiary's coursework and the special knowledge the Beneficiary is claimed 
to have gained of the foreign employer's products or services. 
Further, as indicated above, 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 noteworthy or uncommon compared to his colleagues outside the organization. 
While we acknowledge the Beneficiary's years of experience as outlined in his resume, the record 
lacks evidence to show that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is different from that generally 
held by other sales professionals who export Brazilian hardwood and that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is not easily imparted to another similarly employed professional within the industry. 
We also note that the Beneficiary's resume focuses on his years of professional experience in 
"[ e ]xterior [ c ]ommerce and [i]nternational [b ]usiness." The Petitioner has not explained how such 
experience relates to or established that the Beneficiary's prior 
employment with other 
companies led to special knowledge of products or services. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not established that special knowledge is required to perform the 
Beneficiary's assigned duties; nor has the Petitioner established that his knowledge is distinct from 
that of others who are similarly employed within the Brazilian hardwood industry and can be taught 
only through prior experience with the organization. Rather, it appears that anyone whose position 
involves exporting and selling Brazilian lumber industry-wide would be required to possess the 
Beneficiary's knowledge and certifications, thus indicating that his knowledge is not distinct or 
uncommon within the industry. The Petitioner has not provided sutlicient evidence to allow an 
understanding of precisely what "special" knowledge the Beneficiary gained or how that knowledge 
is special. While the Beneficiary may be a valuable employee of the company and an experienced 
sales manager within the Brazilian hardwood industry, the record lacks suflicient evidence to 
establish that his knowledge is "special," as defined in the Act and regulations. The Petitioner has 
submitted little evidence to set the Beneficiary's knowledge apmi or to demonstrate that it is 
uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished by some unusual quality. Due to these evidentiary 
deficiencies, the record does not establish that he possesses "special" knowledge. 
9 
.
Matter of V-F-P- Ltd. 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
We have also considered whether the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary possesses "advanced'' 
knowledge. Because "advanced" knowledge concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and 
procedures, the Petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the 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. 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. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of its 
"specific process and procedures" and states that his knowledge is not common and greatly 
developed as compared to knowledge found within the industry. The Petitioner's broad claims that 
the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of processes and procedures are not 
sufficient without a detailed description of the processes and procedures and an explanation of how 
those processes and procedures makes the Beneficiary's knowledge advanced. 
In an RFE, the Director asked the Petitioner to explain how the Beneficiary's position involved 
advanced knowledge of the company's processes and procedures and to specify the training and 
experience required to obtain such knowledge. The Petitioner was also asked to state the number of 
employees within the organization who possess similar knowledge as the Beneficiary. 
As previously discussed , while the Petitioner provided a number of certificates showing that the 
Beneficiary participated in various courses, only two of the certificates show that the coursework 
pertained directly to his employment with and none of the information that 
accompanied the certificates established that the acquired training was related to or resulted in the 
Beneficiary's advanced knowledge of the employer's processes or procedures. Further, while the 
Petitioner's February 2016 response statement indicates that the Beneficiary was hired to work for 
"because of his vast and extraordinary experience in the wood business,'' this 
statement indicates that the Beneficiary did not gain advanced knowledge from working at 
Further, the Petitioner did not specifically identify any processes or procedures and focused 
on the Beneficiary's significant role in selling the employer ' s products. 
In support of a motion, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge with 
respect to a third party Brazilian "watchdog" organization that monitors the sales and exports of 
timber and forest products. However, it is unclear how the Beneficiary's knowledge of this 
organization is distinct from others who work in the same industry. The Petitioner listed several 
competitors within the lumber sales and exporting industry. lt is reasonable to conclude that 
knowledge similar to that of the Beneficiary ' s is also required of employees within these competitor 
entities who, like the Beneficiary, are subject to the same limits set by the third party "watchdog " 
10 
.
A1atter of V-F-P- Ltd. 
organization. Moreover, the Petitioner has not specified a process or procedure that is involved in 
working within the limits set by this third party organization. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not provide further information about processes and 
procedures or the Beneficiary's "advanced" knowledge of those processes and procedures as 
compared to others within the organization. We disagree with the Petitioner's reference to the 
Director's decision as a "rambling narrative with no supporting authority." The Director's January 
9, 2017 decision adequately summarized the elements that comprise specialized knowledge and 
provided sufficient information to clarify what was missing from the Petitioner's supporting 
evidence that precluded approval of the petition. We note that the Petitioner bears the burden of 
establishing eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). The Petitioner cannot be 
deemed to have met this burden without, at minimum, specifically identifying a process or procedure 
in which it claims the Beneficiary has an "advanced"' level of knowledge. Further, a determination 
of whether a beneficiary's knowledge is "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of his or her 
knowledge against that of others in the organization. As discussed above, the Petitioner has not 
identified any processes or procedures of the foreign entity, nor provided a discussion comparing the 
Beneficiary's knowledge with that of others in the company. Therefore, \Ve conclude that, while the 
Beneficiary is a skilled employee, the Petitioner has not established that he has "advanced'' 
knowledge. 
V. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not establish that the Petitioner had a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad at the time of filing. Further. 
although the Petitioner provided evidence to show that the Beneficiary has many years of experience 
in the Brazilian lumber industry, it has not established that the Beneficiary's knowledge is special or 
advanced. Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses special or 
advanced knowledge, we need not address whether the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a 
position involving specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United States in a specialized 
knO\vledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as lvfatter ofV-F-P- Ltd., ID# 526028 (AAO Dec. 12, 2017) 
II