dismissed L-1B Case: Religious Ministry

identifyin$ * deleted to 
prevent cbr~dy anwarranted 
invasion of personal pitva~y 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 07 103 52 133 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 0 3 200% 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
lo' 
dministrative Appeals Office 
EAC 07 103 52 123 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1B nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is described as a non-profit corporation 
operating a Bible study ministry. It claims to have a qualifying relationship with Precept Ministries International, 
located in Mexico. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of Spanish computer technician 
for a two-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge or that the position offered to the beneficiary in the United States requires the services 
of an individual possessing specialized knowledge. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded it 
to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it failed to mention the beneficiary's extensive 
training and experience gained with the foreign entity, including 47 training courses that provided him with "a 
unique and special capability" to perform the proposed duties in the United States. The petitioner provides a 
summary of the beneficiary's training, experience and qualifications in support of the appeal. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1 101(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 aEliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or 
involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) further states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
EAC 07 103 52 123 
Page 3 
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 2 14(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 184(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. fj 2 14.2(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 nonimmigrant petition was filed on March 5, 2007. The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary would 
be employed as a Spanish computer technician and indicated that he would serve as "translation team 
coordinator," with responsibility for "final text proofing and formatting material for printers." The petitioner 
indicated that that the beneficiary currently performs duties as "National coordinator and training" for its 
Mexican operations, and also serves as a Spanish translator and material formatter. Where asked to describe 
the beneficiary's education and work experience, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary speaks Spanish 
and English and that he is trained in the use of Quark and Adobe Indesign publishing software. The petitioner 
noted that the beneficiary has a bachelor's degree in music composition and publishing, and that he has 
worked for the petitioner's international organization since 1998. 
In an attachment to the Form 1-129, the petitioner further described the beneficiary's duties as follows: 
Applicant would be working a 40 hour work week on campus under the direction of the 
Director of Spanish ministries. 
He would coordinate the translation team, keeping track of who has what material and in 
what stage of translation and printing it is at. 
He would serve as editor and formatter of materials using "Quark" and "Adobe 
Indesign" publishing software. 
He would work intimately with Director of Spanish Ministries in formatting and final 
proof-reading of Spanish materials. 
He would be responsible for sending finished materials to the printer and working with 
printer to achieve a quality product. 
EAC 07 103 52123 
Page 4 
The petitioner described the beneficiary's qualifications as an employee with specialized knowledge as 
follows: 
The applicant has worked full time for us in Mexico since Sept. 1998. He has been our 
Mexican National Coordinator and Trainer for the last three years and knows the Inductive 
Bible Study method which all our Bible study material is based on and an intimate knowledge 
of our Bible study Materials. He had been trained on "Quark" and "Adobe Indesign" 
publishing software to help us translate and format material preparing it for printing in 
Spanish. He is also bi-lingual speaking Spanish and English. 
The petitioner explained that it requires the beneficiary's services in the United States for one or two years so 
that it can complete Spanish translations of its Bible study materials. The petitioner noted that the materials 
include charts and maps that have been difficult to format properly, and that having the applicant in the 
United States would allow faster completion of the project. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary will 
return to Mexico to continue carrying out training workshops and Bible study classes upon completion of his 
assignment. The petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence in support of its claim that the 
beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he would be employed in a position requiring specialized 
knowledge. 
The director issued a request for evidence on March 28, 2007. The director requested, inter alia, additional 
evidence to establish that the beneficiary's proposed job duties in the United States require specialized 
knowledge. The director advised the petitioner that the evidence must show that the knowledge possessed by 
the beneficiary is not general knowledge held commonly throughout the industry, but that it is truly special or 
advanced. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a certificate indicating that the beneficiary completed a training course in 
"Quark Authorized QuarkXPress 6.5" given by Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc. The length of the course 
was two days, from February 22,2005 until February 23,2005. 
The director denied the petition on July 3 1, 2007, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the 
beneficiary has been or will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. In denying the petition, the 
director noted that the petitioner had not adequately described the beneficiary's proposed duties, and had 
therefore failed to establish that he would be employed in a qualifying position. The director acknowledged 
the petitioner's submission of the beneficiary's training certificate, but concluded that it appeared based on the 
evidence submitted that anyone who completed a two-day training course in Quark publishing would be 
qualified to perform the duties of the proffered job. The director therefore concluded that the beneficiary 
possesses only general knowledge. 
On appeal, the petitioner acknowledges that it "failed to mention the extensive training and experience" the 
beneficiary completed with the foreign entity. The petitioner states that the beneficiary "has completed 47 of 
our courses thus giving him a unique and special capability to do the work we need him to do." The petitioner 
attaches a statement prepared by the beneficiary's supervisor and emphasizes that it requires the beneficiary's 
services to complete its projects in a timely manner. 
EAC 07 103 52 123 
Page 5 
The attached statement includes the following information: 
[The beneficiary] meets [the petitioner's] requirements. 
He has been employed for more than 10 years, during that time has learned the Process of 
Inductive Bible training, and has matured in all phases of development. 
[The beneficiary] has been formatting in Spanish all our translated Materials. Besides Quark 
he knows other programs he has studied including Indesign which we presently use now. We 
are working on maps, charts and graphics for covers and courses but need to be together to do 
it correctly and speedily. We have tried by e-mail, Skype and phone but how do you tell him 
to move something to the right and down but not too far and get it correctly? We have a goal 
to finish all production of materials by 2010. We are behind now and only having a trained 
computer graphic designer who is also Precept trained and on campus will we come close to 
meeting our goal. It has to be someone who knows the expressions or vocabulary in both 
English and Spanish and we have no one but [the beneficiary] at this time. We saw the value 
of [the beneficiary] last year when we worked together to produce The Spanish Inductive 
Study Bible. Being together side by side accomplished us meet the printing deadline.[sic] 
The petitioner provides a detailed summary of all training the beneficiary has undertaken with the petitioner's 
organization, as well as a summary of all courses and workshops he has conducted and led. All of the training 
courses relate to the study of the Bible or other religious or lifestyle topics. 
On review, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge 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. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a detailed job description of the services to be 
performed sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. Id. 
The petitioner neither asserted nor provided evidence that the beneficiary has acquired specialized knowledge 
of the organization's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management or other interests and its 
application in international markets, or that the beneficiary possesses an advanced knowledge or expertise in the 
company's processes and procedures. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). Rather, the petitioner describes an 
employee who will rely on his ability to use common publishing software such as Quark and Adobe Indesign to 
format and edit written materials for publication, and who will use his language skills to assist with the 
translation of documents from English to Spanish. The petitioner has not identified any aspect of the 
beneficiary's position that involves specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning organization and has 
therefore failed to satisfy the essential element of eligibility for this visa classification. The beneficiary's 
training in the use of standard editing and publishing software does not establish "specialized knowledge" as 
contemplated by the statute and regulations. Based on the information presented by the petitioner, any 
individual who is bilingual in the Spanish and English languages and has some familiarity with publishing 
EAC 07 103 52 123 
Page 6 
software would be able to perform the duties of a "Spanish computer technician" within the petitioning 
company. 
It is also 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. See Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. 1 17, 120 (Comm. 1981) (citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. 
61 8 (R.C. 1970) and Matter of LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 816 (R.C. 1971)).' As stated by the Commissioner in 
Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. 49, 52 (Comm. 1982), 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." 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 skills 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' operation. 
Id. at 53. As discussed further below, the evidence of record demonstrates that the beneficiary is more akin to 
an employee whose skills and experience enable him to produce a product or provide a service, rather than an 
employee who has unusual duties, skills, or knowledge beyond that of a skilled worker. 
It is noted that the statutory definition requires the AAO to make comparisons in order to determine what 
constitutes specialized knowledge. As observed in 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 
1990), "[slimply put, specialized knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a plain meaning." The 
term "specialized knowledge" is relative and cannot be plainly defined. As properly observed by the director, 
the petitioner has not explained how the knowledge and expertise required for the beneficiary's position 
would differentiate his knowledge from others with a similar educational and professional background. The 
petitioner has not established that prior experience within the organization is actually required in order to 
serve as a Spanish computer technician for the United States entity. Although the petitioner refers to the 
beneficiary's experience gained with the foreign entity, and his intimate knowledge of the organization's 
Bible study materials and instructional methods, the petitioner has not explained how this training relates to 
' 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, as well as Matter of Penner, remain useful guidance concerning the 
intended scope of the "specialized knowledge" L-1B classification. 
EAC 07 103 52123 
Page 7 
the proposed employment in the United States. Rather, it is evident that the knowledge and skills that would 
allow him to successfully perform his duties were likely gained through his university education and through 
completion of a short training course in Quark publishing software. While it is undoubtedly helpful that the 
beneficiary is familiar with the petitioner's and foreign entity's operations, and possible that the beneficiary's 
particular skill set is uncommon within the petitioner's international ministry, the petitioner has not 
established that prior experience with the organization is actually required in order to translate and edit 
materials for publication for the U.S. entity. Again, the beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge must 
relate specifically to the petitioning organization. 
The beneficiary may be highly qualified for the offered position. In the instant case the petitioner has 
demonstrated, at most, that the beneficiary is knowledgeable in translating Spanish and English, and that he 
has the ability to utilize certain common publishing software programs. However, the beneficiary's 
knowledge and expertise, while valuable to the petitioner, do not include the type of special or advanced 
knowledge of the petitioner's products, processes or other interests as required by the regulations. In Matter 
of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. 49 (Comm. 1982), the Commissioner held that "petitions may be approved for 
persons with specialized knowledge, not for skilled workers." The plain meaning of the term "specialized 
knowledge" is knowledge or expertise beyond the ordinary in a particular field, process, or function. The 
petitioner has not furnished evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the beneficiary's duties would involve 
knowledge or expertise beyond what is commonly held by others with a similar educational background. The 
record as presently constituted is not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has specialized 
knowledge or that he would be employed by the petitioner in a specialized knowledge capacity. For this 
reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that the petitioner and the beneficiary's 
foreign employer have a qualifying relationship, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(i). To establish a 
"qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, the 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 related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1). 
At the time of filing the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary's foreign employer is "Precept Ministries 
International." The petitioner in this matter is also Precept Ministries International. Where asked to indicate 
the address of the beneficiary's employer abroad, the petitioner indicated "stateside supported from 
Chattanooga, TN." The petitioner indicated that the U.S. company serves as a parent to the entity that 
employs the beneficiary in Mexico, and where asked to indicate the stock ownership and managerial control 
of each company stated "Non Profit Ministry 501(c)(3)." 
In the request for evidence, the director requested, inter alia, additional evidence to establish that there is a 
qualifying relationship between the U.S. entity and the beneficiary's foreign employer. The director noted that 
such evidence should demonstrate the ownership and control of each company, and may include, but is not 
limited to, copies of stock certificates, stock ledgers, articles of incorporation, andlor joint venture 
agreements. 
EAC 07 103 52123 
Page 8 
In response, the petitioner submitted a document entitled "Memorandum of Understanding, Agreement for 
Precept Ministries Office," dated February 15, 1995, between Precept Ministries of Reach Out, Inc. and 
Precept Ministries Mexico, which "sets for the terms and conditions of facilitation and operation of a Ministry 
in Mexico." 
The agreement gives Precept Ministries Mexico "permission and a limited license to establish a Ministry in 
Mexico as an extension of Precept and to use the name 'Precept Ministries." The agreement is contingent 
upon Precept Ministries Mexico adhering to "the doctrinal positions and philosophy of the ministry of 
Precept." In the event of a conflict that cannot be resolved, the Board of Precept would mediate the 
disagreement, and, should mediation fail, the rights and privileges granted by the agreement would be 
terminated upon 30 days written notice to Precept Ministries Mexico. 
The agreement also grants Precept Ministries Mexico a limited license to translate Precept materials with the 
review and approval by Precept. The agreement would be terminated if Precept Ministries Mexico prints, 
duplicates or distributes any materials without Precept's prior approval. Pursuant to the terms of the 
agreement, it is expected that Precept Ministries Mexico would become "financially self-sustaining but not 
autonomous." Precept may provide some measure of support at its sole discretion, but is not obligated to do 
so. Precept Ministries Mexico may purchase materials from Precept at no more than cost plus 25%, and is 
responsible for all costs associated with taxes, distribution, warehousing and storage. Precept Ministries 
Mexico is required to provide Precept quarterly and annual accounting reports and an annual inventory report. 
Finally, Precept Ministries Mexico is required to appoint to its board of directors or similarly constituted 
governing body two members from Precept's Chattanooga, Tennessee office, and such members are expected 
to attempt to attend at least one board meeting annually. The agreement indicates that "Precept Ministries 
Mexico shall operate with all reasonable freedom in order that ministry may be accomplished as local 
leadership deems best." The agreement between the parties "may be terminated by either party at any time 
upon 60 days written notice to the other party." 
Upon review, the submitted memorandum of understanding is insufficient to establish that the petitioner and 
the beneficiary's foreign employer have a qualifying relationship. 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 United States and foreign entities for purposes of this visa classification. Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 
19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 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 of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 595. 
While the AAO acknowledges that certain documentation, such as stock certificates for the petitioning entity, 
may not be available for a non-profit religious organization, the petitioner provided no evidence to fully 
explain the scope and extent of the control the U.S. entity exercises over the foreign entity. Based on the 
memorandum of understanding, alone, the relationship appears to be more akin to a franchisor-franchisee 
relationship than a parent-subsidiary relationship. An association between a foreign and U.S. entity based on a 
EAC 07 103 52 123 
Page 9 
franchise agreement is usually insufficient to establish a qualifying relationship. A franchise, like a license, 
typically requires that the franchising organization comply with the franchisor's restrictions, without actual 
ownership and control of the franchise organization. See Matter of Schick, 13 I&N Dec. 647 (Reg. Comm. 
1970) (finding that no qualifying relationship exists where the association between two companies was based 
on a license and royalty agreement that was subject to termination since the relationship was "purely 
contractual"). Here the contractual agreement between the U.S. petitioner and the foreign entity can be 
terminated as opposed to one in which the foreign organization and a domestic organization are permanently 
tied together. See Matter of Schick, 13 I&N Dec. 647 (Reg. Comm. 1970). 
In addition, the director specifically requested that the petitioner submit articles of incorporation for both the 
petitioner and the foreign entity. The memorandum of understanding submitted by the petitioner refers to 
"Precept Ministries of Reach Out, Inc.," but this is not the name utilized by the petitioner on Form 1-129. The 
failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
petition. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). The petitioner has submitted no documentation for the foreign entity 
apart from the memorandum of understanding, which refers to the establishment of an "office" in Mexico. 
The petitioner has not provided an address for this office or any other evidence that there is in fact a 
qualifying branch, affiliate or subsidiary in Mexico that is doing business in a regular, systematic and 
continuous manner. 
Absent evidence of the existence of the Mexican entity, and evidence that clearly establishes that the U.S. 
entity possesses the requisite control over the foreign entity, it cannot be concluded that the relationship 
between the companies can be considered that of affiliates, parent-subsidiary, or branches of the same 
organization. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. For this additional 
reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only 
if he or she shows that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. 
See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.