dismissed L-1B Case: Market Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Inunigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 21. 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a research firm serving the global entertainment industry, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a "Senior Research Manager, International" under the L-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(L). The L-lB classification allows a corporation or other 
legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee with 
"specialized knowledge" to work temporarily in the United States. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that she will be 
employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision did not give adequate consideration to 
its claims regarding the Beneficiary's special and advanced knowledge, or the knowledge required 
for the proposed position, and did not apply the preponderance of the evidence standard to the facts 
presented. 1 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB 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)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a specialized knowledge capacity. Id. The petitioner 
1 The Petitioner also asserts that the Director "did not address the evidence that [the Beneficiary] is in a functional 
manager position abroad at the UK affiliate," and instead found that the Beneficiary's position abroad "is not a 
specialized knowledge position." The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a 
managerial capacity. However, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner "provided evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary served in a managerial role abroad." We agree with this determination and will not further address the 
Beneficiary's employment capacity abroad, which was not a basis for the denial of the petition. 
.
Matter of M-, LLC 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or 
her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
Under the statute, a beneficiary is considered 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, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(c)(2)(B). A petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting 
evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the statutory 
definition of specialized knowledge. 
Specialized knowledge is also 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(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
11. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner's group, headquartered in provides market research services for the global 
entertainment industry, including film studios worldwide. It works with its clients' marketing and 
research staff on the development and execution of their marketing strategies, from concept 
development through distribution, using quantitative and qualitative research methods. The group's 
services include "International Campaign Analytics," which involves testing potential marketing 
materials for movies (such as trailers and television advertisements) on a country-by-country basis to 
enable clients to create tailored marketing campaigns for different global markets. 
The Petitioner states that its United Kingdom affiliate hired the Beneficiary as a research executive 2 in 
April 2015 and subsequently promoted her to the positions of senior research executive (in January 
2016), research manager (in November 2016), and senior research manager (in April 2018). The 
Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary has been working on international campaign analytics market 
research and projects for a major client, during much of her three years of 
employment abroad. The Beneficiary has a bachelor's degree in film studies and American studies, as 
well as a master's degree in digital entrepreneurship, and a __ certificate in process-based 
project management methodologies. 
The Petitioner now seeks to employ the Beneficiary in the United States in the position of senior 
research analyst, international , at an annual salary of $65,000. The Petitioner states that she will 
continue to oversee international market research projects for which has reorganized 
its international film marketing team to report to its offices, and will also work with 
international campaign analytics project teams for other movie studios. 
2 The Beneficiary 's initial 2015 offer letter from the foreign entity lists her job title as "Jr. Research Analyst." 
2 
Matter of M-, LLC 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge, and that she will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United 
States. 
As a threshold issue, we must determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. If the evidence is insufficient to establish that she possesses 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that she would be employed in the United States in 
a specialized knowledge capacity. 
A petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition of specialized knowledge. Under the statute, 
a beneficiary is considered 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. Here, 
the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's knowledge is both special and advanced. 
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. 
For the reasons discussed below, we find insufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. 
A Special Knowledge 
Determining whether a beneficiary has "special knowledge" requires review of a given beneficiary's 
knowledge of how the petitioning organization manufactures, produces, or develops its products, 
services, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. Because "special 
knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning 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 
special knowledge. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary possesses special knowledge of the company's services, 
research, techniques, and methodologies and their application in international markets. The 
3 
.
Matter of M-, LLC 
Petitioner also focuses on the Beneficiary's educational background, noting that her university 
studies, in combination with her work experience, make her uniquely qualified for the position. 
Finally, the Petitioner emphasizes the Beneficiary's client-specific and market-specific knowledge, 
specifically her contacts within and experience working with this client, and her 
knowledge of international market research techniques. 
Turning first to the Beneficiary's company-specific knowledge, the Director found that the Petitioner 
had not demonstrated that knowledge of its services, techniques, and methodologies could be 
considered special knowledge that is truly different or uncommon compared to the knowledge held 
by other market research professionals working within the industry at large. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director ignored evidence regarding the nature of the 
Petitioner's business and the fact that the company has been recognized as the leader in its industry, 
based on its highly advanced scientific research methods. The Petitioner has emphasized that its 
group was chosen by and other major studios over its competitors, and asserted that 
these clients would not use its services "if they were not distinct or if they were common in the 
industry." However, the Petitioner stops short of explaining what makes its specific services, 
techniques, research, or methodologies distinct from those used by its competitors. The Petitioner 
claims that its methods are based on "rigorously scientific quantitative and qualitative research 
methods," but any company providing services in the market research field would reasonably be 
expected to use the latest research and data analytics techniques. The Petitioner has not described its 
techniques in detail or claimed that it has developed novel research methods. 
The Petitioner did not respond to the Director's request that it explain how the claimed special 
knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and the record does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner's research professionals are required to undergo training in any company-specific 
tools, processes, techniques, or methodologies needed to carry out their work for the company's 
clients. It may be true that the specific market research requirements of global entertainment 
companies in general, and of its film studio clientele in particular, are not widely known among 
market research professionals; however, the Petitioner must also establish that the knowledge cannot 
be easily imparted in order to establish that it is truly distinct or uncommon. The Petitioner has not 
met that burden because it has not described this company-specific knowledge or how it is imparted 
to employees in sufficient detail, nor has it explained how long it would take for a similarly educated 
research professional to acquire the knowledge. 
Simply claiming that the Petitioner itself is considered a leader in its field is insufficient. Even if the 
Petitioner ' s methods and processes can be considered proprietary, the Petitioner must still establish that 
some aspects of its market research or service delivery processes require special knowledge that is 
somehow different from that held by those working for other market research firms in international 
markets. The fact that other workers may not have the same level of experience with the company ' s 
methodologies as applied to specific clients is not enough to equate to special knowledge if such 
knowledge could be readily imparted to a similarly educated or experienced employee. 
4 
.
Matter of M-, LLC 
For these reasons, the record does not support a finding that knowledge of the Petitioner's services, 
research, methodologies, and techniques is special knowledge. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary's specific academic background makes her uniquely 
qualified for her current and proposed positions. The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's 
bachelor's and master's degrees, and the specific combination and focus of those degrees, along with 
her expertise gained through progressive work experience overseas, are what amount to specialized 
knowledge. While we do not doubt that the Beneficiary's academic studies made her well-prepared 
for the type of work she performs, the Petitioner has not established that her educational background 
resulted in her obtaining special knowledge not held by others who are expected to perform the same 
type of duties. 
The Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary's direct subordinates abroad (a research executive 
and a senior research executive) have bachelor's degrees, but it also indicated that she works closely 
with a research manager and operations executives who possess either master's or Ph.D degrees. 
The Petitioner did not provide the specific details of the degrees possessed by others performing 
similar work within the company, or establish that the Beneficiary, based on her academic 
background, is expected to perform duties requiring knowledge not possessed by others with the 
same job title. The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary's advanced degree put her on an 
accelerated track for promotions, but did not submit sufficient evidence to establish how her 
qualifications contribute to her special knowledge of the petitioning company's products or services. 
Further, although the Beneficiary may possess a particularly relevant academic background with 
respect to her areas of study, the Petitioner has not established that a liberal arts degree in film 
studies combined with a marketing or data analytics degree is actually required for the offered 
position. Again, it has not differentiated the Beneficiary's actual duties from those performed by its 
other research managers. As such, it has not established that her specific role requires a broader 
academic background that is not possessed by other similarly employed workers within the 
company, or that this background, alone or in combination with her work experience, has resulted in 
her possession of special knowledge. 
We now tum to the Petitioner's primary claims on appeal, in which it emphasizes that the position of 
senior research manager, international requires the Beneficiary's (1) knowledge of the client, 
its specific requirements and preferences regarding international film research, and its 
market research projects, including historical knowledge regarding its franchises and the results of 
prior research the Petitioner has conducted ; (2) understanding of the client relationship with 
the "key personalities" within the client company, and familiarity with the client's 
based teams; and (3) knowledge of international box office trends and international market 
research techniques. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has knowledge in these areas that is 
"distinct or uncommon" even in comparison to others within the company, and that her knowledge 
of international campaign analytics services and techniques , as they pertain to _____ 1s 
umque. 
.
Matter of M-, LLC 
With respect to the Beneficiary' claimed client-specific special knowledge, we acknowledge that the 
Petitioner submitted a letter from Senior Vice President of Creative Strategy and 
Research with notes that the Beneficiary has worked onsite at 
m and "acted as a unique bridge between and [the 
Petitioner's group], facilitating market research work with [the Petitioner]." He also mentions 
the Beneficiary's "distinct knowledge of market research requirements" and notes that "it would 
be invaluable to I business to have greater support from [the Petitioner] in 
to execute and analyze international market research." states that to fulfill this 
role, "the relevant individual will have to have a highly specialized skill set incorporating knowledge 
of the international film marketplace, business needs and structure and the intricacies of 
international market research in terms of survey design, management of fieldwork and analysis." He 
concludes that the Beneficiary would be the "ideal candidate," noting that her skillset, experience, 
perspective, and knowledge of the business "would be almost impossible to find elsewhere." 
While we have taken statement into account, we must also consider it within the context 
of the evidence as a whole. He identifies knowledge of business needs" as a requirement 
for any employee of the Petitioner assigned to the account; however, the other 
knowledge and skill requirements he mentioned would reasonably be found among similarly employed 
workers within the Petitioner's company and throughout its industry. It is unclear how the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of the international film marketplace or knowledge of international market 
research techniques is substantially different from that held by other professionals working in this 
field. 
We note that the record contains an organizational chart (which appears to include both U.K. and US.­
based employees) for the Petitioner's "Campaign Analytics - International" organization. This team is 
comprised of more than 20 individuals, most of whom work in the positions of "Research Executive," 
"Research Manager, International," "Director, International Research," or similar roles. The Petitioner 
has not provided job descriptions for other research managers, but it is reasonable to believe that 
others, like the Beneficiary have developed a working relationship with one or more regular clients of 
the company, and as such, have knowledge of that client's marketing staff and decision-makers, 
research requirements, preferences and prior research projects conducted for the client. Individual 
employees within the U.S. and U.K. entities may have more contact with some clients than others, but 
it is reasonable to believe that any research manager representing the petitioning company would be 
able to provide the same international campaign analytics services to any client. 
While the Petitioner stresses the importance of the Beneficiary's historical knowledge of previous 
projects conducted for it did not explain why insights gained through those projects, 
including both project results and information regarding the "key personalities " in play and how to 
respond to their "demands and requests," could not be readily communicated to another employee 
who has performed the same type of work for a different client. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not explained why knowledge of any particular client's needs is 
considered special knowledge, as it is unclear that different movie studios would have substantially 
different market research needs when approaching an international marketing campaign for a new 
6 
.
Matter of M-, LLC 
film. For example, it did not attempt to clarify why the international market research knowledge 
needed to market test movie trailers and advertisements in foreign markets for 1s 
somehow different from what is generally required to provide the same service to, for example, 
or Further, as already discussed above it is unclear how the market research 
services provided by the Petitioner's group differ from those of other companies that provide the 
same services to the global entertainment industry. The Petitioner does not appear to indicate that it 
is the exclusive provider of these services to its clients. 
Although the Petitioner emphasizes the Beneficiary's existing relationships with 
staff and "key personalities" within the client organization, the fact that workers outside the 
Petitioner's group do not have existing professional contacts with individual employees of its 
clients' organizations, does not establish that this type of knowledge is special. All employees can 
be said to possess unique skill sets to some degree; however, a skill set that can be easily imparted to 
another similarly qualified market research professional is not "special knowledge." Again, the 
Petitioner must establish that the position requires this employee to have knowledge that is 
uncommon in the industry and knowledge that could not be readily transferred. Here, the record 
does not support the Petitioner's claim that the duties could only be performed by an employee who 
has worked with ____ in the United Kingdom. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes that the Beneficiary's knowledge of international box office trends 
and international market research techniques is special knowledge but has not sufficiently supported 
this claim. It is evident that any professional working in this field would be familiar with trends in 
the industry and the techniques needed to study the industry and to present useful deliverables to 
clients. While the record reflects that the Beneficiary does in fact have this knowledge, it is unclear 
how it rises to special knowledge that is truly distinct. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary is the most efficient choice for transfer 
because she already possesses the client-specific and market-specific knowledge required for the 
position. While it may be true that there are no employees in the United States office with the exact 
same knowledge the Beneficiary possesses, the record does not sufficiently support the Petitioner's 
claim that the knowledge is in fact significantly different from that generally held by professionals in 
its industry, or that the duties the Beneficiary has performed and will perform are truly "not 
comparable to any other researcher in the field." 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special 
knowledge of the company's products or services, and their application in international markets. 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner has not established, m the alternative, that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge. 
Determinations concerning "advanced knowledge" require review of a beneficiary 's knowledge of 
the petitioning organization ' s processes and procedures. A petitioner may meet its burden through 
.
Matter of M-, LLC 
evidence that a given beneficiary has knowledge of or expertise in the organization's processes and 
procedures that is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and understanding in 
comparison to other workers in the employer's operations. Such advanced knowledge must be 
supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart from the elementary or basic knowledge 
possessed by others. Also, as with special knowledge, the petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate 
that a beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the particular industry and cannot 
be easily imparted from one person to another. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced compared to other employees of 
the foreign entity "with respect to international research projects for and notes that 
she has played an essential role in ensuring that the company's international research is conducted 
efficiently and delivered in a format that can used by the client's senior executives. The Petitioner 
also emphasizes that the Beneficiary's subordinates in the United Kingdom are not required to have 
specialized knowledge of research procedures, processes, clientele, international trends, or portfolio 
management. It states that the position of senior research manager requires detailed knowledge of 
international markets in order to credibly present and contextualize research results and that the 
Beneficiary's international experience would be difficult to replicate. Further, the Petitioner states 
that the offered U.S. position requires this advanced knowledge because the Beneficiary will need to 
train U.S. staff in international market research techniques. 
As discussed above, we found that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that 
knowledge of its internal practices, procedures, and techniques for carrying out international 
research projects constitute special knowledge that could not be easily imparted to another individual 
in the Petitioner's industry. Likewise, we find insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary has acquired advanced knowledge of the company's processes and procedures in 
comparison to her colleagues. While the Petitioner maintains that she excels in her role as a senior 
research manager, it has not provided relevant information that would allow us to compare her 
knowledge to that of other similarly-employed workers within the company, either in the United 
States or abroad. 
The Petitioner's organizational chart for the group's Campaign Analytics - International team 
identifies U.S.-based employees with the job titles "Sr. Director, International Research," "Sr. 
Research Manager II, International," "Research Manager, CA - International," "Research Manager, 
International," and "Sr. Project Manager, International." In addition, the Petitioner states that its 
other global entertainment clients etc.), unlike 
which is in the process of relocating its film marketing operations from to the United States, 
have already based their studio ' s international marketing departments out of Therefore 
it is unclear why the U.S.-based international campaign analytics team would require the Beneficiary 
to provide training in aspects of international market research techniques or trends in the 
international film industry . 
It is also unclear why the Beneficiary ' s knowledge of these techniques would be more advanced than 
that of her U.S.-based counterparts. The Petitioner claims she has advanced knowledge of 
international box office trends and the reasons for success and failure of different genres in different 
8 
.
Matter of M-, LLC 
international markets. However, as the Petitioner states that it is the leading provider of market 
research services in this industry, it cannot credibly claim that advanced knowledge in these areas is 
narrowly held within the company. Further, as already discussed, such knowledge would be 
considered general knowledge within the industry and is not specific to the company. 
The Petitioner does not appear to claim that every research manager within its international 
campaign analytics team has specialized knowledge, and it has not shown how the Beneficiary's 
specific assignments resulted in her acquisition of advanced knowledge in comparison to his 
colleagues, as opposed to client-specific knowledge that could be readily transferred to another 
research manager who has performed similar work for a client in the same industry. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary is unique within the company due to her 
management of the account. However, it appears that most research managers 
within the same team are likely assigned to a specific client. If such specialization is common 
throughout the company's campaign analytics organization, the Petitioner has not shown how it 
amounts to "advanced" knowledge. The Petitioner has not differentiated the Beneficiary's actual 
duties from those performed by its other senior research managers assigned to different clients. As 
such, it has not established that her specific role requires a higher degree of company-specific 
knowledge that is not possessed by other similarly employed workers within the company. 
It is clear that the Petitioner considers the Beneficiary to be a valuable and highly productive 
employee who excels at her position, but it has not sufficiently shown that her knowledge of 
company processes and procedures is advanced compared to other similarly employed workers 
performing the duties of a research manager, or that she possesses special knowledge that is different 
from what is generally held in the Petitioner's industry. 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, 
we need not further address whether the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofM-, LLC, ID# 2460528 (AAO Mar. 21, 2019) 
9