dismissed L-1B Case: Religious Ministry

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave.. N.W.. Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
idellbuy ha.& -a - 
I. ' *-. 
pnvmt clearly unw arrmted 
1- of personal privacy ' 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services g *"\ 
FILE: LIN 03 12 1 52 195 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: .,dl4 1 6 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)( 15MLI of the 
, ,% , 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L) ' 
I 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
I 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been 
returned to the officc that originally decided your case. Any fi~rther inquiry must be made to that 
office. 
---? Robert P. Wiemann, Dir ctor ' 
b 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 03 121 52195 
Page 2 
I 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmiirant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner, The Navigators, claims that it is a branch of Th located 
in Kenya. The petitioner is a non-profit interdenominational 
organization was established in the State of Colorado in 1956. In March 2003, the Y.S. 
organization petitioned Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to classify the beneficiary as a 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 I (a)( 15)(1,) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L), as a specialized knowledge worker (L-IB). 
The petitioner seeks to eniploy the beneficiary's services as a new employee and as the U.S. 
entity's special ministry assistant?' 
On May 2, 2003. the director dented the petition because the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneliciary had specialized knowledge or that she had been or would be employed in a capacity 
requiring specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief refuting the director's findings. 
To establish L-l eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1 10 ](a)(] 5)(L), the petitioner must meet certain criteria. Specifically, within three 
years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a qualifying 
organization must have employed'the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or 
in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one continuous ?ear. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek 
to enter the Un~ted States teniporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(3) requircs that an individual petition filed on 
Form 1-1 29 shall be accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that tl;e petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (I)(l)(ii)(G) of 
this section; 
(ii) Evidence that the alien tvill be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of-the services to be 
performed. 
' Although the Act provides the K-1 nonimmigrant religious worker classification, the petitioner 
has elected to petition for the beneficiary as L-1 nonimmigrant intracompany transferee, a 
category that Congress originally lcreated for multinational corporations. See H.R. Subcomm. No. 
1 of the Jud. Cornrn., Immigration Act of 1970: Hearings on H.R. 445,9lst Cong. (November 12, 
1969). The AAO notes that the petitioner has also filed a Form 1-360 (LP40226552593), Petition 
for a Special Immigrant Religious Worker Pursuant to Section 203(b)(4) of the Act, on behalf of 
th~s beneficiary. 
L~N 03 121 52195 
Page 3 
(iii) Evidence that 'the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employ~nent abroad was in a position 
that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge and that the 
alien's prior education.ltlraining, 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. 
I 
The issue in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and 
whether the proposed employmdit 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 the following: 
I 
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 spec~al knowlledge of the company product and its application in 
internatiol~al markets or has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and 
procedures of the company. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines "specialized knowledge" as: 
[Slpecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning 
organization's product, slrvice, 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. 
I 
On the Fonn 1-1 29 and in an attached memo, the petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed U.S. 
duties as: 
11 
Will assist the U.S. Director in implementing all aspects of the [organization's] 
mission, visions, values, knd strategic directions. She will develop a network to 
provide personal and spiritual support for the [petitioner's] stat1 She will serve the 
staff as a Minister at ~ar'ge, as well as a mentor to several key leaders. She will 
design and teach Leader Development and Staff Training materials. 
In addition, in an attached memo, the petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed U.S. duties in 
tenns of the following functions: 
I. To participate as a full' member of the National Leadership Team. 
2. To develop a network1 of relationships in the U.S. that will serve as a basis for 
providing relational support and personal funding over the coming years. 
I 
LIN 03 121 52195 
Page 4 
, : 
4. To serve the staff of the collegiate ministry as a minister at large and as a 
mentor to selected staK(30% of the time). 
5. To participate in the Leader Development Process as a leader at large and as a 
mentor to specific leaders. 
6. To assi the staff training process. 
7. To colabor wi.th I the metro ministry as a leader and mentor to 
staff. 
8. To serve as a counsetor to the U.S. Director. 
On March 13, 2003, the director requested additional evidence. In particular, the director 
requested evidence to show that the beneficiary possessed specialized knowledge of the product, 
service, research, equipment, te~hniques, management, or other interests and its application in 
international markets. or advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the organization's processes 
and procedures. 
In response, the petitioner c~ted tlie March 9, 1994 emorandum on the 
interpretation of specialized knowledge to support the that the beneficiary - 
has knowledge that is not generally known In addition, the petitioner stated, "the Beneficiary, 
like all Navigators staff, received extensive training prior to being selected as a full-time staff 
member in 1978" and "that Beneficiary received additional special training beyond the normal 
training given to all [the organiption7s] staff, additional training that she completed in 1981." 
The petitioner further stated that the beneficiary's "over forty years of experience with [the 
organization] make her an especially valuable asset to Petitioner." The petitioner submitted a 
copy of the beneficiary's resum; and claimed that an additional letter of duies "further highlights 
the extraordinary  accomplishment^ of Beneficiary in the international organization." 
On May 2. 2003, the director denied the petition because the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary had specialized knowledge or that she had been or would be employed in a capacity 
requiring spec~alized k11owledge.r The director found that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
knowledge possessed by the beneficiary was specialized or that the position required someone 
with spectalized knowledge. The director stated, "the record did not establish that the 
beneficiary's skills and abilit~es are substantially different from, or advanced in relation to other 
individuals working as special ministry assistants working in the same industry." 
I 
) 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief asserting: I) the beneficiary and petitioner's proposed position 
satisfy the specialized knowled& rcquin:ment; 2) the director's conclusions are arbitrary and 
capricious; and, 3) the director'; asserted rationale reflects an unco~istitutional intrusion into 
LIN03 121 52195 
I 
Page 5 11 
petitioner's religious doctrine and leadership selection criteria.' Specifically, counsel refers to a 
1994 INS memorandum as a/ guide for interpreting the statutory definition of specialized 
knowledge. Memorandum from James A. Puleo, Acting Associate Commissioner, hzterpretation . 
ofSpecialrzed Knowledge, CO 2 14L-P (March 9, 1994). In the tneniorandum, the Commissioner 
noted that specialized knowledge is not limited to knowledge that is proprietary, exclusive or 
unique, but also includes knowledge that is "different from that generally found in the particular 
industry." Counsel asserts that "the Petitioner has identified a number of indicators of special or 
advanced knowledge with respect to Petitioner's religious character and mission" and "the 
Beneficiary's long and distinguished record of ministry leadership and responsibility both reflect 
and contribute to her speciali knowledge of Petitioner's religious character and mission. 
Beneficiary is one of only a few members of Petitioner's religious order qualified to assume 
senlor leadership responsibility." In addition, counsel asserts, "Because the proposed position has 
been uniquely created for Beneficiary's role in the senior leadership of Petitioner, the position 
clearly requires specialized kno<vledge. Specifically, the position requires Beneficiary's particular 
specialized knowledge." 
Moreover, on appeal. counsel cIllairns that the director tnischaracterized and ignored the record. 
Counsel explains that "the beneficiary's spccialized knowledge derives (in part) from the 
distinctive and advanced assig&nents and responsibilities that Beneficiary has held during the II course of her employment." Counsel also stated that there is "no evidence in the record that 
suggest that there are any positions comparable to the 'special ministry assistant' position created 
for the beneficiary" because of the beneficiary's "unique skills and gifts." 
In examining the specialized knowledge capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to 
the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(3)(ii). As required'in the 
regulations, the petitioner must submit a detailed description of the services to .be performed 
sufficient to establish specialize"d knowledge. See id. On review, the record does not contain 
sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. The 
petitioner has provided a broad description of the beneficiary's duties and qualifications and fails 
to articulate exactly how it is spec:ial. The petitioner has provided no evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary's duties are so ercedtional and out of the ordinary that their implementation requires 
specialized knowledge. For example, the petitioner could have explained what specialized 
knowledge in particular is needed as "a leader at large" and as "a mentor to specific leaders.". 
The AAO notes that on appeal, counsel claims that the denial of the petition raises an issue 
under the First Amendment of the United States Constitiltion However, the AAO has no subject 
matter jur~sdiction to determine the merits of a Constitutional issue. The jurisdiction of the 
Admin~strative Appeals Office lis limited to that authority specifically granted to it by the 
Secretary of the United States ~t~artment of Homeland Security. See DHS Delegation Number 
01 50.1 (effective March I, 2003): see also 8 C.F.R. 5 2.1 (2004). The jurisdiction of the AAO is 
limited to those niatters describerj at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.l(f)(3)(E)(ii1) (as in effe'ct on February 28, 
2003). Accordingly. the AAO cannot pass upon the constituti~halit~ of the statute it administers 
and has no authority to address the petitioner's first amendment claim. Whether or not religious 
employees qualify for "L-I" classification does not relate to religious preference or practice and 
will be addressed in this decision pursuant to the criteria set forth in the statute and applicable 
regulations. Sce general[?, Matter of C'hurch Scientoloo Internufronal, 19 I&N Dec. 603 
(Conim. 1 988). 
LIN 03 121 52195 
Page 6 
Moreover, the petitioner should/have demonstrated how the beneficiaryas knowledge compares to 
I1 
other ministry assistant within and outside the organization. For instance, the additional evidence 
might establish that the benefikiary possesses knowledge valuable to the petitioner's religious 
character and mission. Additionally, the evidence may demonstrate that the beneficiary has 
knowledge and cxpertise to the1 extent that the petitioning entity would experience a significant 
interruption of growth in ordel': to prepare a U.S. religious worker to assume the beneficiary's 
proposed duties. Other than broad and vague descriptions, the petitioner provided nothing of this 
I, 
nature. 
Further. the petitioner offers no explanation as to the specific educational or work qualifications 
necessary for a spec~al ministry ass~stant. Nor does the petitioner provide documentation that the 
benelic~ary received specialized training or international assignments focused specifically on the 
petitioner's miss~oti. While counsel. on appeal, asserts that the beneficiary's "long and I distinguished record of ministry leadership and responsibility both rcflect and contribute to her 
special knowledge of Petitioner's religious character and mission." the lack of specificity 
pertaining to the beneficiary's +ark experience and training, particularly in comparison to others 
employed by the petitioner and in this religious organization, fails to distinguish the beneficiary's 
knowledge as specialized. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of 
counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matrer oj Ohaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988): Matter Of 
Laureatto, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA' 1983); Molter of Romirez-Sanchez, 1 7 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). 
4 
In addition, the duties described for the position of special ministry assistant include 
"develop[ing] a network of relationships," "mcntor[ing]," and "designling] and teacli[ing] Leader 
Development and Staff Training materials." This description is ambiguous. The petitioner failed 
to explain how th~s knowledge appears to be uncommon within the petitioner's organization and 
the knowledge to gain the status of a special ministry assistant appears to be widely available. 
Although counsel claims that there are not "any positions comparable to the special ministry 
assistant pos~tion" and that the posltion was "created for the beneficiary" because of the 
beneficiary's "unique skills andigifis," the AAO is not persuaded that the beneficiary's created 
position is one requiring specialized knowledge and that another religious worker would not be 
qualified to perform the proposed duties such as "develop[ing] a network of relationships in the 
U.S " The record 1s riot persuasive that the beneficiary would be employed in a capacity requiring 
specialized knowledge other than In a position title. The actual duties themselves reveal the true 
nature of the employment. Fedi;~ Bro~ C'o , Ltd v. Smu, 724 F. Supp. 1103. 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), trff'd, 905 F 2d 4 1 (2d Cir. 1990). Therefore, the director correctly concluded that the 
beneficiary failed to qualify as a spec~allzed knowledge worker. 
Further, when examining whether a beneficiary 1s elisible for L-1B classification, one of the 
factors the AAO will examine is whether the beneficiary is "key" personnel. In Mcrtler of Penner, 
the Commissioner eniphasized that the specialized knowledge worker classification was not 
intended for "all emp1o)ees wit$ any level of specialized knowledge." 18 1&N Dec. 49 (Comm. 
1982) According 10 Miitlev of Penner, "[s]uch a conclusion would permit extremely large 
numbers of persons to qualify for the '[,-I' visa" rather than just the "key" personnel that 
Congress specifically llltended '~lle skills and knowledge necessary to function as a special 
LIN 03 121 52195 
Page 7 
ministry assstant for the petitioning entity appear to be those that any worker could be trained to 
perform as adecluately as the beneficiary, thereby; the beneficiary does not appear to be a "key" 
personnel. It is also appropriate for the AAO to look beyond the stated job duties and consider the 
importance ot'the beneficiary's knowledge of the organization's service, management operations, 
or decision-making process. Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. 1 17, 120 (Comm. 198 1) (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 Peizner, 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 clarilicat~on: 
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 eniployed primarily for his ability to carry out a key process or function 
which is important or essential to the business' operation. 
Id. at 53. In the present matter, the evidelice of record demonstrates that the beneficiary is more 
akin to an employee whose skills and experience enable her to further the organization's mission, 
rather than an employee who has unusual duties, skills, or knowledge beyond that of a skilled 
worker. 
It should be noted that the statutory definition of specialized knowledge requires the AAO to 
make comparisons in order to determine what constitutes specialized knowledge. The term 
"special~zcd knowledge" is not an absolute concept and cannot be clearly defined. As observed 
in 1756, Inc , "[slimply put, specialized knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a 
plain meaning.'. 745 F. Supp. at 15. The Congressional record specifically states that the L-1 
category was intended for "key personnel." See generally, H.R. REP. No. 91-85 1, 1970 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750. The term "key personnel" denotes a position mithin the petitioning company 
that is "of cruc~al importance." Web~fer'.~ JI New College D~ctronaly 605 (Houghton Mimin Co. 
2001). In general, all employees can reasonably be considered "important" to a petitioner's 
enterprise. If an employee did not contr~bute to the overall economic success of an enterprise, 
there would be no rational economic reason to employ that person. An employee of "crucial 
importance" or "key personnel" must rise above the level of the petitioner's average employee. 
Accordingly. based on the definition of "special~zed knowledge" and the congressional record 
related to that term, the AAO must make comparisons not only between the claimed specialized 
knowledgc ernployee and the general labor market, but also between that employee and the , 
remainder of the petitioner's workforce. 
Here, the petitioner has provided no documentation to establish that the beneficiary's knowledge 
is more advanced than other workers of the religious organization. Again, the petitioner has not 
provided any information pertaining to the other workers employed by the petitioner. Nor did the 
petitioner distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge, work experience, or training from the other 
1,IN 03 121 52195 
Page 8 
employees. The lack of evidence in the record makes it impossible to classify the beneficiary's 
knowledge as advanced, and precludes a finding that the beneficiary's role is "of crucial 
importance" to the organization. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden .of proof in these proceedings. Marrer of 
Treasure Craft ofC7alijornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). While it may be correct to 
say that the beneficiary is a skilled workcr with a long record of ministry leadership, this is not 
enough to bring the beneficiary to the level of "key personnel." 
Moreover, in Mutter of Pemler, the Cotnlnissioner discussed the legislative intent behind the 
creation of the specialized knowledge category. 18 I&N Dec. 49 (Comm. 1982). The decision 
noted that the 1970 House Report, H.R. No. 91 -85 I, stated that the number of admissions under 
the 1,-1 classification "will not be large" and that "[tlhe class of persons eligible for such 
non~rnmigrant vim is narrowly drawn and will be carefully regulated by the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service " /li. at 5 1 The decision further noted that the House Report was silent on 
the subject of specialized knowledge, but that during the course of the sub-committee hearings on 
the bill, the Cha~rnman specifically questioned witnesses on the level of skill necessary to qualify 
under the proposed "I," category. In response to the Chairman's questions, various witnesses 
responded that they understood the legislatiori would allow "high-level people," "experts," 
individuals with "unique" skills, and that it would not include "lower categories" of workers or 
"skilled craft workers." Matter of Penrier, 1r1 at 50 (c~ting H.R. Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. 
Comm., /n7migralroir Act of1970 flerrvings on H R. 445, 91st Cong. 210, 218, 223. 240, 248 
(November 12, 1969)) 
Reviewing the Congressional record, the Commissioner concluded in Matrer ofPenner that an 
expansive reading of the specialized knowledge provlslon, such that it would include skilled 
workers and technicians, is not warranted. The Co~nmissioner emphasized that that the 
spectalized knowledge worker classification was not intended for "all employces with any level 
of speclalized knowledge." Matter of Petmer, 18 I&N Uec. at 53. Or, as noted in Matter of 
, Colley, "[mlost employees today are specialists and have been trained and given specialized 
knowledge. However, in view of the House Report, it can not be concluded that all employees 
with specialited knowledge or performing highly techn~cal duties are eligible for classification as 
intracolnpany transferees." 18 I&N Dec. at 119 According to Mtrtter of Penner. "[sluch a 
conclusion would permit extremely large riu~nbers of persons to qualify for the 'L-I' visa" rather 
than the "key personnel" that Congress specifically intended 18 I&N Dec. at 53; see also, 1756, 
Inc , 745 F Supp. at I5 (concluding that Congress did not intend for the specialized knowledge 
capacrty to extend all e~nployees with specialized knowledge, but rather to "key personnel" and 
"executives.") 
The legislative history for the term "speciaIized knowledge" provides ample support for a restrictive 
interpretation of the term. In the present matter, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
beneficiary should be considered a member of the "narrowly drawn" class of individuals possessing 
specialized knowled~:e. See 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, supra at 16. 
Finally, with regard to counsel's reliance on the 1994 Associate Commissioner's memorandum, the 
memorandum was intended solely as a guide for employees and will not supersede the plain 
language of the statute or the regulations. Although memoranda may be useful as a statement of 
LW 03 121 52195 
Page 9 
policy and as an aid in interpreting the law, such documents are not binding on any CIS officer as 
they merely indicate the writer's analysis of an issue. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(c) provides 
that only "designated [CIS] decisio~~s are to serve as precedents" and "are binding on all [CIS] 
employees in the administration of the Act." Therefore, by itself, counsel's assertion that the 
beneficiary's qualifications are analogous to the examples outlined in the memorandum is 
insufficient to establish the beneficiary's qualification for classification as a specialized knowledge 
professional. As discussed, the pct~tioner has not submitted probative evidence to establish that the 
benefic~ary's knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished by some unusual quality and 
not generally known in the alien's field of endeavor. 
After careful consideration of the evidence, it is concluded that the beneficiary does not possess 
specialized knowledge; nor would the beneficiary be employed in a capacity requiring specialized 
knowledge. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petjtioner has flailed to establi'sh that a qualifLing 
relationship exists between the petitioner and foreign entity. On the Form 1-129, the petitioner 
claimed that the U.S. organization is a "branch" of the foreign organization. 
In defin~ng the nonimm~grant classification, the regulations specifically provide for the temporary 
admission of an intracompany transferee "to the United States to be employed by a parent, 
branch, affiliate, or subsidiary of [the foreign firm, corporation, or other legal entity]." 8 C.F.R. 3 + 
214.2(1)(1)(i) (emphasis added). The regulations define the term "branch" as "an operating 
division or office of the same organization housed in a different location." 8 C.F.R. 8 
214.2(1)(l)(ii)(J). CIS has recognized that the branch office of a foreign corporation may file a 
nonimmigrant petition for an intracompany transferee. See Matter of Kloetti, 18 I&N Dec. 295 
(Reg. Cornm. 198 1 ), iMutter of Leblmc, 13 l&N Dec. 8 16 (Reg. Corn~n. 197 1 ); Matter of Schick, 
13 I&N Dec. 647 (Reg. Cornm. 1970); see also Mutter of Pcrmer, 18 I&N Dec. 49, 54 (Comm. 
1982)(stating that a Canadian cor-poration may not petition for L- I B employees who are directly 
employed by the Canadian offict: rather than a United States office). When a foreign company 
establishes a branch in the United States, that branch is bound to the parent company through 
common ownership and management. A branch that is authorized to do business under United 
States law becomes. in effect, part of the national industry. Matter of Schick, supra at 649-50. 
However, if the petitioner submits evidence to show that it is incorporated in the United States, 
then that entity will not qualify as "an . . . office of the same organization housed in a different 
location," since that corporation is a distinct legal entity separate and apart from the foreign 
organization. See Matter of M, 8 I&N Dec. 24, 50 (BIA 1958, AG 1958); Malter of Aphrodire 
Inveslments Limilecl, 17 I&N Dec. 530 (Comm. 1980): and Mutter of Tessel, 17 I&N Dec. 63 1 
(Act. Assoc. Comm. 1980). If the claimed branch is incorporated in the United States, CIS must 
examine the ownership and control of that corporation to determine whether it qualifies as a 
subsidiary or affiliate of the overseas employer. 
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. Mutter of Church Scientology 
Internatronal, 1 9 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1 988): Aec also ,M-rtler of Siemens Medrc~ll Systents, Inc., 
LM 03 121 52195 
Page 10 
19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 1982). In 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 S~~1en1olog.y International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates, corporate 
stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes of relevant 
annual shareholder meetings must be examined to determine the total number of shares issued, 
the exact number lssued to the shareholder, and the subsequent percentage ownership and its 
effect on corporate control. Additionally, a petitioning company must disclose all agreements 
relating to the voting of shares, the distribution of profit, the management and direction of the 
subsidiary, and any other factor affecting actual control of the entity. See Matter cf Sietnens 
Medzcal Systern.~, Ir~c , supra. Without full disclosure, CIS is unable to determine the elements of 
ownership and control. For this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
In the present matter, the petitioner is a non-profit corporation organized in the State of Colorado 
and the beneficiary's overseas employer is a "Limited" company organized in Kenya. Although 
both companies share the same organizational purpose and name, there is insufficient evidence to 
establish that they have common ownership and control. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
satisfied the technical requirements of 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1)(1)(i). 
Although not dlrectly addressed by the director, the AAO finds that the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary has been cmployed in a capacity requiring specialized knowledge 
with the foreign entity. The petitioner described the beneficiary's foreign duties on the Form I- 
129 and in a document describing the breakdown of the hours she spends on each duty. For 
example, the beneficiary is described as one who provides "spiritual direction and coaching and 
mentorlng." "le;lds through teaching, trainlng and transmitting . . . core values," "meet[s] with 
key leaders," and spends four to six hours a day when riot traveling "[p]rocess[ing], reply[ingJ, 
and act[ingl on correspondence; do[ingl bible studies; [w]ork[ing] on papers; [pJrepar[ing] for 
trips; prepar(lng1 conlerence messages; prepar[ingl for meetings." 'These duties do not 
demonstrate that the beneficiary has been enlployed in a specialized knowledge capacity. Based 
upon the petitioner's description, the beneficiary appears to spend the majority of her day 
involved in the administrative tasks of the organization. The petitioner has not submitted any 
evidence of the knowledge and expertise reqrllred for the beneficiary's position that would 
indicate that the benefic~ary is one distinguishable as "a special ministry assistant" as compared to 
other per5onnel withln this type of organization. Simply going on record without supporting 
docunlentary eviderlcc is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Trea~ure Craft c?J Culrfornla, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
Specifics are clearly an important indication of whelher a beneficiary's duties involve specialized 
knowledge, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the 
regulations See Fed~n Bros Co, L,td v Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E D.N.Y. 1989). afd, 905 
F.2d 4 1 (2d. Cir. 1990). In sum, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary meets 
the criteria of a specialized knowledge worker. For this additional reason, the petition may not be 
approved. 
LIN03 121 52195 
Page I I 
1 
An application or petition that fails to con~ply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the'service Center does not identify all the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc v llnited States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), aff'd. 3 45 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). 
l1 
In visa petition proceedings, tfie burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains 
entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. Here, that burden has not 
been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
1 
ORDER; The appeal is dismissed.