dismissed L-1B Case: Photo Imaging Products

_U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-USA CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 3, 20I7 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-I29, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer and distributor of photo image products, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary in a "Technical and Production Support" position under the L-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section IOI(a)(I5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(l5)(L). The L-IB 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 record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer; (2) the foreign employer is doing business as a qualifying organization abroad; 
and (3) the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, has been employed abroad in a position 
involving specialized knowledge, and will be employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that all requirements for the 
requested classification have been met. 1 
Upon de novo review, the Petitioner has now established that the foreign entity is doing business and 
we withdraw the Director's adverse determination with regard to this sole issue. However, as the 
Petitioner has not overcome the remaining grounds for denial, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-IB nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving 
specialized knowledge, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. Section IOI(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 or specialized knowledge capacity. Id. 
1 
We decline the Petitioner's request for oral argument. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b). 
.
Matter of P-USA Corp. 
The relevant statutory definition states that 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) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1184( c )(2)(B). 
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)(1 )(ii)(D). 
An individual L-1 B classification petition must be accompanied by evidence that: the beneficiary has 
been employed abroad in a position that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized 
knowledge for at least one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition; the 
beneficiary is coming to work in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer; and 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). 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that it had a qualifying 
relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer, a Chinese company. The 
Petitioner claims that the two entities have an affiliate relationship.L 
To establish a "qualifying relationship," the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employe~ (i.e. one entity with "branch" 
offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the 
' ) 
Act. 
The term "affiliate" is defined in relevant part, as ( 1) one of two subsidiaries both of which are 
owned and controlled by the same parent or individual, or (2) one of two legal entities owned by the 
same group of individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or 
proportion of each entity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(K). 
The Petitioner claims 
that it was "founded by and ' The Petitioner has submitted: 
a (1) a copy of its articles of incorporation, indicating 'that the company is authorized to issue one 
million shares of stock; (2) its by-laws, signed by as president and as 
2 
The Petitioner marked on the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that the foreign entity is its subsidiary, 
and later submitted an amended Form 1-129 indicating an affiliate relationship. The Petitioner has otherwise consistently 
claimed that the two companies are affiliates. We note that ,the record does not establish that the Petitioner owns any 
interest in the foreign entity and therefore, there is no parent-subsidiary relationship. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( I )(ii)(J) and 
(J) (defining "subsidiary' and "parent"). 
2 
.
Matter of P-USA Corp. 
secretary; (3) a copy of its California business tax certificate which lists and 
as business owners; and (4) a copy of its 2014 IRS Form 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S 
Corporation, with supporting schedules and statements. The accompanying Form 1125-E, 
Compensation of Officers, and Schedule K-1, Shareholder's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, 
etc., identify as the owner of 100% of the company's shares. 
With respect to the foreign entity, the Petitioner submitted an uncertified English translation of the 
foreign company's business license, but did not provide a copy of the original Chinese language 
document. The business license identifies as the "legal representative" and "North 
American Investment Company" as "shareholder" of the Chinese company. Later, in response to a 
request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an expired California business tax certificate for 
which identified as the "business owner." The 
Petitioner reiterated that ' and are the sole owners of both the foreign employer 
and the American entity." 
In the denial decision, the Director emphasized that the Petitioner's 2014 federal tax return showed 
that is its sole owner, and was inconsistent with the Petitioner's claim that and 
have joint ownership. With regard to the foreign entity, the Director found a similar 
inconsistency, noting that while the Petitioner again claimed joint ownership by and 
the foreign entity's business license shows that' 'is the owner and 
the record suggests that solely owns that company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
Both businesses, both domestic and foreign, were started by while he was 
married with Community property law in California states that all properties 
that are acquired during marriage, including business entities, are wholly owned by 
husband and wife . 
. . . It can be concluded that both the petitioning and foreign 
entities are wholly owned by and and therefore shows, without a 
doubt, that a qualifying relationship does exist between the two entities. 
We agree with the Director that the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish a 
qualifying relationship. 
Regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities. See, 
e.g., Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm 'r 1988); Matter of Siemens Me d. 
Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 1986); Matter ofHughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). 
The Petitioner, and the foreign entity are all corporations. When 
assessing whether corporate entitles have a qualifying relationship, we look for probative 
documentary evidence showing who owns and controls the stock of all companies involved. As 
general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are not 
sufficient evidence to determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a 
3 
.
Matter of P-USA Corp. 
corporate entity. The corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, 
and the minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings must also be examined to determine the 
total number of shares issued, the exact number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent 
percentage ownership and its effect on corporate control. See Siemens Me d. Sys .. Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 
1632. Without full disclosure of all relevant documents, we are unable to determine the elements of 
ownership and control. 
In lieu of this type of primary evidence of ownership and control, the Petitioner submitted a tax 
return and business tax certificate which provided conflicting information regarding its ownership. 
The Petitioner claimed that and his spouse own the foreign entity, but submitted evidence 
in the form of an uncertified translation of a business license indicating that it is owned by a separate 
legal entity, Likewise, the only evidence of ownership the 
Petitioner provided for is an expired business tax certificate. Tax 
returns, tax certificate and business lipenses do not have the same probative value as stock 
certificates and other relevant corporate documents. 
While the minimal evidence submitted suggests that owns at least some portion of both the 
Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer, the record does not contain sufficient to provide a 
complete picture of the ownership and control of all entities involved. The Petitioner's explanation 
regarding shared marital property does not overcome the deficiencies and inconsistencies in the 
record. Accordingly, the,Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer and the appeal will be dismissed. 
/ III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary 
acquired special knowledge of the Petitioner's products or production processes that is truly distinct 
or uncommon compared to the knowledge typically possessed by other workers in the same industry, 
or knowledge of the company's processes and procedures that is advanced compared to other 
employees within the petitioning organization. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that it provided sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary has 
"specialized knowledge beyond the skills of other workers," and that it would take at least six 
months to train someone else to perform the same duties. The Petitioner emphasizes that the 
Beneficiary understands all factors necessary to produce a consistently high output while minimizing 
product defects and "would help the US business tremendously with his specialized knowledge of 
sublimation imprint production." 
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 he possesses 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that he has been employed abroad in a position 
involving specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
4 
.
Matter of P-USA Corp. 
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 ofthe 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. 
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. 
Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary possesses both special and advanced knowledge 
based on his ten years of experience working for its Chinese affiliate, where he currently works as 
the vice-leader of the factory imprint department. 
The Petitioner and its foreign affiliate design, develop, produce, and market dye-sublimation photo 
image products. The Petitioner states that its flagship brand allows full-color images 
to be applied to products such as ceramic and stainless steel drinkware, cell phone accessories, and 
home and office goods. 
In its support letter, the Petitioner explained that it plans to expand its production lines in its 
California, facility to accommodate customer needs, and requires experienced technical 
leaders "to enhance the production line, train our existing and new employees, establish more 
efficient production processes and to insure acceptable defect ratios." The Petitioner stated the 
"required person needs to know ... wrapping machine, operating the Tunnel Oven, know to detect 
the color effect and matching colors with PMS standard." 
The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary: has the knowledge needed to train U.S. workers on 
the Tunnel Oven, Heating Press, Mug Wrapping Machine and 3D Machine; will help lead 20 
workers on the production line; will transfer his skills in color recognition to avoid defective 
, products; and will teach employees how to mass produce products with a low defect ratio. 
Specifically, it indicated he would spend 50% of his time controlling and monitoring the tunnel oven 
production process, 30% of his time training employees on the operation of heat presses and mug 
wrap machines, and 20% of his time transferring his knowledge of color matching according to PMS 
standards and managing and controlling the quality of printed output from various high end third­
party laser printers. 
The Beneficiary's duties as vice leader of the foreign entity's factory imprint department are 
described as: monitoring and adjusting the oven temperature; using special skills to unwrap printed 
5 
.
Matter of P-USA Corp. 
mugs using one hand; wrapping mugs with a wrapping machine; inspecting the quality of finished 
goods, acting as oven operation director and maintenance advisor; analyzing defects and issuing 
reports to production and printing departments; follow leader's production plan and being 
responsible for production quality; and assisting team leader to plan the production schedule. 
A. Special Knowledge 
Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petltwning 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 claims that the Beneficiary's "special skill sets include the operation and maintenance 
of all of the specialized equipment we utilize[] in [the petitioning company] for the high-volume 
decoration of our manufactured products" and that his expertise "does not exist in the United States." 
The specific equipment includes an electric conveyor tunnel oven used for heating ceramic mugs 
during the sublimation process. The Petitioner notes that the oven was manufactured in China, was 
installed by its Chinese team, and has "special specifications only written in Chinese." The 
Petitioner explained that special knowledge is needed to make sure the machine runs and operate~ 
efficiently, especially wnen two production shifts are operating. 
The Petitioner further referenced its mug wrapping machines, flatbed heat presses, and vacuum heat 
presses, noting that this equipmel)t is also made in China with specifications written in Chinese. 
Finally, the Petitioner noted that its graphics department uses various ;"high-end, professional-level" 
inkjet 
and laser printers manufactured by and 
The Petitioner submitted a summary of the Beneficiary's training and special skills, noting that he 
had two weeks of training in the operation of the tunnel oven and one week of training in the 
operation of the mug wrap machine. The Petitioner also referenced courses in heating press 
operation, unspecified safety courses, 
and "special color recognition and using technique," but did 
not provide the length of any additional training or specify when the Beneficiary completed it. On 
appeal, the Petitioner makes a general claim that it would require six months of training to impart the 
claimed specialized knowledge to another individual. However, the Petitioner does not specify 
whether this timeframe would apply to someone who already knew how to operate the same or 
similar equipment or someone who had no prior training in this industry. 
Further, the Petitioner did not previously claim that formal training in these areas equipped the 
Beneficiary with specialized knowledge, but rather notes that he has developed his skill set through 
years of experience and trial and error to learn the intricacies of the production process, such that he 
has learned over time how to maximize output while minimizing defects. · 
6 
.
Matter of P-USA Corp. 
With reference to the Beneficiary's specific skills, the Petitioner notes that he can detect the cause of 
tunnel oven malfunctions, knows the different temperature and time settings for different products, 
"knows the best way to wrap products before printing," and has "a unique understanding and sense 
about color" which allows him to "test the color effect when the ,printing is finished through the oven 
and find out relative methods to mend it if there is a color difference compared with the original 
sample." On appeal, the Petitioner notes the Beneficiary's ability to use his specialized knowledge 
to quickly adjust production settings based on visual inspection of finished products to ensure nearly 
perfect output., and notes that his skills "allow him to output over 30% more decorated products at a 
lower defect rate than anyone else in the company" by making "crucial, time sensitive decisions on 
the production floor." 
It is evident that the Petitioner deems the Beneficiary to be highly skilled in the dye-sublimation 
imprint process. However, to establish that his knowledge and skills constitute "special knowledge," 
the Petitioner must establish that he possesses knowledge that is truly distinct or uncommon in 
comparison to knowledge held by similarly employed production leaders in the Petitioner's industry. 
The Petitioner has not stated that its equipment, production techniques, or technologies are specific 
or proprietary to the company or somehow different from what is used by its competitors in this 
field. 
For example, the Petitioner makes sublimation products for large companies such as and 
which likely rely on a number of different imprinting companies to produce their product 
lines. The Petitioner has not identified any aspects of the tunnel oven, heat press, 3D printers, third­
party laser printers, or mug wrapping machines that it uses to distinguish them from the type of 
equipment typically used in this field. The Petitioner emphasizes that some equipment in its U.S. 
facility was manufactured in China and has certain specifications written in Chinese. However, it 
has not explained why such specifications could not simply be translated, nor has it identified any 
other aspect of the equipment that differentiates it from the heat tunnels, presses, and wrapping 
machines used by other companies who make the same types of products as the Petitioner does. 
Further, the Petitioner's California facility is already using this equipment to produce final products 
and it is unclear why the staff there would not be well-versed in its operation. 
Simply stating that the Beneficiary is more adept at operating these machines to achieve desired results 
compared to other workers in the company is not sufficient to establish that he has special knowledge. 
Rather, the petitioning organization would need to establish that it uses equipment or production 
techniques that require the Beneficiary, to have knowledge that is different from what is generally held 
by other workers who perform similar duties within the industry. Even though imprinting production 
personnel outside the org<J.nization do not have the Beneficiary's exact experience with the 
petitioning organization's production environment, the record contains insufficient evidence to 
establish that the Beneficiary's knowledge is different or uncommon in comparison to others 
working in this type of position. 
Rather, it appears that other employees in the company and in the industry can perform and do 
perform the same type of duties using the same or similar equipment. The Beneficiary may have a 
particular talent or skill in carrying out these duties effectively, but the Petitioner has not shown that 
Matter of P-USA Corp. 
these qualities equate to special knowledge of the Petitioner's products, equipment, or production 
methodologies. 
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. 
As noted, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary is able to "output over 30% more decorated 
products at a lower defect rate than anyone else in the company." The Petitioner operates five 
manufacturing facilities in China and one in the United States. It acknowledges that other 
employees have received similar training, perform similar responsibilities and operate the same 
machinery, but explains that no other employees can achieve the same impressive results. The 
Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary, who has worked for the foreign entity for 10 years and in 
his current position for approximately 6 years, has a longer tenure than other employees, but it has 
not provided information that would allow us to compare his duties, training, or experience with that 
of other workers in leadership positions. It does appear that his knowledge would be broader in 
comparison to the team he leads, as those employees appear to have responsibility for discrete parts 
of the process - they are divided into "paper wrapping," "mug wrapping," "quality check" and 
"packaging" teams. 
Further, as discussed above, we found t~e Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish 
that knowledge of its equipment, techniques, and methods related to dye-sublimation imprinting 
could not be easily imparted to an experienced production employee in the Petitioner's industry. 
The Petitioner has not distinguished its processes or procedures for imprinting from those used 
throughout its industry. Even if we conclude that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of these 
procedures relative to co-workers in lower-level positions, the Petitioner must still establish that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is different from that held by workers in similar positions in this field. 
It is clear that the Petitioner considers the Beneficiary to be a valuable and highly productive 
employee who excels at his position, but it has not sufficiently shown that his knowledge is different 
from what is generally held in the Petitioner's industry. 
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 
8 
Matter of P-USA Corp. 
involving specialized knowledge or will be employed m the United States m a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying 
relationship with Beneficiary's foreign employer or that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-USA Corp., ID# 538012 (AAO Aug. 3, 2017) 
9