dismissed L-1B Case: Residential And Commercial Building

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 2 1 Z014 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administr ative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion 
to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 
days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See 
also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
) 
.,If~/~ 
~on Ro enberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.usc.is.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and 
the matter is now before the Administr ative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant petition to extend the beneficiary's status as an L-1B 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Texas limited partnership, states that it is 
engaged in residential and commercial building. The petitioner asserts that it is the parent company 
of a subsidiary office located in China. The petitioner has employed the beneficiary as a 
steel tile and electric welding specialist since July 10, 2008 and seeks to extend his status until March 
1 31, 2014. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the foreign entity or that the petitioner and the foreign entity are 
qualifying organizations doing business as defined by the regulations. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, counsel acknowledges that the petitioner did not 
adequately explain the relevant company relationships, but claims that the petitioner and its foreign 
subsidiary are nevertheless qualifying organizations doing business as defined in the regulations. The 
petitioner submits additional evidence in support of the appeal. 
I. The Law 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification , the petitioner must meet the 
criteria outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized 
knowledge capacity, for one continuous year within the three years preceding the beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the 
U.S. temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a parent, 
subsidiary, or affiliate of the foreign employer. 
If the beneficiary will be serving the United States employer in a managerial or executive capacity, a 
qualified beneficiary may be classified as an L-1A nonimmigrant alien. If a qualified beneficiary will 
be rendering services in a capacity that involves "specialized knowledge ," the beneficiary may be 
classified as an L-lB nonimmigrant alien. !d. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the statutory definition of 
specialized knowledge: 
1 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R § 214.2(1)(15)(ii), the total period of stay may not exceed five years for aliens employed 
in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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.P.R.§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge as: 
[S]pecial 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 regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form I-129, Petition 
for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 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 
(1)(1)(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 education, training and employment qualifies him/her 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 . 
II. The Issues on Appeal 
A. Qualifying Relationship 
The sole issue addressed by the director was whether the petitioner established that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the foreign entity. 
The pertinent regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii) define the term "qualifying organization" and 
related terms as follows: 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(G) Qualifying organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or 
other legal entity which: 
(1) Meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the 
definitions of a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in 
paragraph (1)(1)(ii) of this section; 
(2) Is or will be doing business (engaging in international trade is not 
required) as an employer in the United States and in at least one 
other country directly or through a parent, branch, affiliate or 
subsidiary for the duration of the alien's stay in the United States as 
an intracompany transferee[.] 
* * * 
(I) Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
* * * 
(K) Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent 
owns, directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; 
or owns, directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or 
owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal 
control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less than 
half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
* * * 
(L) Affiliate means 
(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 and controlled by the same group of 
individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the same 
share or proportion of each entity, ... [.] 
A. Facts 
The petitioner states that it is a limited partnership that has been doing business in Texas since 1980. 
In a submitted in support of the Form I-129, the petitioner explained that the company's general 
partner is Inc., a company that "has earned a reputation as one of the premier 
residential home builders in the City of Houston." The petitioner indicated in the Form I-129 that it 
had forty-five employees and that it earned over $28 million in revenue in 2012. 
(b)(6)
, NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The petitioner also explained that it expanded its operations to China through the formation of a 
' on November 30, 2004. The petitioner stated that the foreign office 
was registered with the People's Republic of China General Administration for Industry and 
Commerce and that it has been successful at leveraging building techniques and materials from the 
Chinese market. On the Form I-129, the petitioner stated that the name of the beneficiary's employer 
abroad was ' ' The petitioner also indicated that its 
relationship with this company is the same as it was during his qualifying year of employment 
abroad. 
The director later issued a request for evidence, stating that the petitioner had submitted insufficient 
evidence to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. Specifically, the 
director requested that the petitioner provide additional evidence to demonstrate the ownership and 
control of the foreign entity, including but not limited to a detailed list of owners, meeting minutes of 
the company, articles of organization or partnership, bylaws, or amendments to these documents, 
evidence of capital contributions, income tax returns, or other evidence of ownership in the foreign 
entity. Likewise, the director noted that the petitioner had failed to submit evidence to demonstrate 
its ownership and requested that the petitioner submit similar evidence relevant to demonstrate 
ownership in the entity. Furthermore, the director also indicated that the petitioner had failed to 
submit sufficient evidence to established that the foreign entity or the petitioner were doing business, 
as required to establish these entities as qualifying organizations. As such, the director instructed the 
petitioner to submit evidence to demonstrate that the foreign entity was currently doing business, 
including but not limited any annual reports, foreign tax documentation, audited financial statements, 
purchase orders, invoices, or other such documentation reflecting the regular provision of goods 
and/or services. Similarly, the director requested evidence to establish that the petitioner was doing 
business, such as federal or state income tax returns, audited financial statements, major sales 
invoices, export or import documentation, bank statements, contracts with vendors and suppliers, or 
loan and credit agreements. 
In response, the petitioner reiterated that the beneficiary had been an employee of its "subsidiary 
office in China" established in 2004. The petitioner stated that the foreign entity was 
100% owned by the petitioner and that the subsidiary abroad "has the same name as the U.S. entity." 
The petitioner asserted that it is doing business in the greater Houston area and submitted several 
pages of the screenshots of independent webpages listing information about the petitioner following a 
search of the company's name on the internet. The petitioner indicated that it is does business under 
the name " as well as through some of its "subsidiary companies/partners ," including 
Ltd. and The petitioner submitted a 2011 IRS Form 1065 U.S. 
Return of Partnership Income for Ltd. specifying that this company earned over 
$5 million in revenue, but it did not include the accompanying schedules K-1 or other evidence of 
this company's ownership. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence related to two different foreign entities. This evidence 
included an internet profile for a Chinese company called 
Ltd." The profile noted that the company was engaged in the sale of electrical 
machinery and related parts. The petitioner further submitted a "Registration Certificate of Foreign 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Enterprises Permanent Office in China" dated January 31, 2009. The registration certificate stated 
that the name of the office was Ltd." 
and that the "name of the head office" was 
certificate provided that the entity was create 
$1,200,000 was provided by 
Inc. located in Houston, TX. The 
m ovember 2 04 and that a total investment of 
As noted, the director ultimately denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity or that the petitioner and the foreign entity were 
doing business as defined by the regulations. The director noted that the Chinese company 
registration certificate had expired in 2010 and that the stated foreign company name 
Ltd." was inconsistent with the foreign entity name 
identified on the Form I-129. Further, the director also pointed out that the submitted IRS Form 1065 
U.S. Return of Partnership Income was for Ltd. and not the petitioner. The 
director observed that the petitioner had failed to submit requested evidence to demonstrate that it 
was doing business, such as tax or financial documentation. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner "did not provide proper and adequate explanation on the 
qualifying corporate relationship between the US companies of Ltd., 
1 
-===== 
and Ltd. 
1 
in Houston, Texas and _ m 
China." The petitioner explains that it does business as and notes that 
is its subsidiary. In support of this assertion, the petitioner submits a certificate of 
limited partnership and an agreement of limited partnership from 1996 indicating that 99% of the 
petitioner is owned by "limited nartner" Ltd. and that 1% of the petitioner is 
owned by "general partner" Inc. The terms of the agreement indicate that 
Inc., the general partner, has wide ranging control over the management of the petitioner 
and that the limited partner, holds only limited control. 
Counsel states that 
1 
Ltd. (aka 
Ltd.)" is a wholly owned "overseas branch" of the petitioner doing business in 
a regular, systematic, and continuous basis since its establishment in 2004. In support of this 
assertion, counsel submits an "income statement" for l Ltd." 
for the 2012 fiscal year indicating that the company earned over $800,000 in revenue. The petitioner 
also provides a Chinese "Business Entity Business License" dated December 31, 2011 for 
1 
Ltd.," which shows that this company was established in China 
on November 3, 2009. This document indicates that the entity had "paid-up capital" of $99,998 and 
listed the company type as "limited liability company" and "foreign joint venture." The scope of the 
business was stated to be "service outsourcing, construction technology research and development, 
computer software development and sales." 
B. Analysis 
Following a review of the petitioner's assertions and the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
As discussed above, the petitioner was requested by the director in the RFE to submit evidence to 
demonstrate ownership in the petitioner, including a detailed list of owners, meeting minutes of the 
company reflecting ownership, articles of organization or partnership, bylaws, or relevant 
amendments to these documents, evidence of capital contributions, income tax returns, or other 
evidence of ownership in the petitioner. Likewise, the petitioner was requested to submit, to the 
extent possible , the same evidence for the foreign employer. However , the petitioner did not submit 
any of this evidence in response to the director's request, and now provides on appeal a certificate of 
limited partnership and an agreement of limited partnership indicating ownership and control of the 
petitioner. 
The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her 
discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further 
information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time 
the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b )(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence 
that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b )(14). 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given 
an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first 
time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena , 
19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, 
it should have submitted the documents in response to the director's request for evidence. !d. Under 
the circumstances, we need not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on 
appeal. As such, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate ownership in the petitioner , and for this 
reason, it cannot be determined whether it has a qualifying relationship with any foreign entity. 
Further, the petitioner indicates that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity that 
employed the beneficiary prior to his transfer to the United States, but has not provided evidence to 
support this claim. The petitioner has identified a number of different names for its claimed Chinese 
subsidiary, but has not clearly established the ownership of any of these entities or provided evidence 
that there is currently a qualifying organization outside the United States. 
In support of the petition , the petitioner referred to the beneficiary's foreign employer as its 
' and identified the subsidiary as , 
" Later, in response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted an internet profile for 
Ltd" which stated that the company was focused on 
the sale of electronics and related parts, as opposed to the provision of construction services as 
elsewhere asserted on the record. At the same time, the petitioner submitted a Chinese company 
registration certificate, which had expired in 2010, stating that the foreign entity company name was 
Ltd." 
Now, on appeal, counsel states that the foreign entity is named j 
Ltd." and also known as" 
submits unaudited financial statements for 
T .td." The petitioner 
Ltd. and a Chinese 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Business Entity Business License dated December 31, 2011 stating that the company was established 
on November 3, 2009. However, there is no evidence that the foreign entity identified on the Form I-
129 ever existed, nor is there evidence that 
Ltd." and ' Ltd." are the same entity, given that one is a 
branch office established in November 2004 and one is a limited liability company established in 
2009. In sum, the various discrepancies with respect to the beneficiary's former foreign employer 
frustrate any conclusion that the petitioner and the beneficiary's former foreign employer are under 
common ownership and control. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in 
the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Indeed, with respect to Ltd., which is stated to be a 
limited liability company, thepetitioner has not submitted any supporting evidence requested by the 
director meant to establish ownership in this company, such as a detailed list of owners, meeting 
minutes of the company, articles of organization or partnership, bylaws, or relevant amendments to 
these documents, evidence of capital contributions, foreign tax documents, or other evidence of 
ownership in the foreign entity. Again, failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material 
line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(14). Therefore, without 
a definitive statement as to ownership in the foreign entity, sufficiently supported by documentary 
evidence , it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has a qualifying relationship with any foreign 
entity. 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the petitioner or the foreign entity are doing 
business as required by the regulations. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G)(2). The term "doing 
business" is defined in the regulations as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods 
and/or services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent or 
office of the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(H). 
As previously discussed, the director requested in the RFE that the petitioner submit additional 
evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner and the foreign entity were doing business in a regular, 
systematic, and continuous fashion. In each case, the petitioner submitted little of the evidence 
suggested by the director. Once again, failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material 
line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(14). 
' 
Indeed, the petitioner failed to submit any relevant tax documentation, but instead submitted an IRS 
Form 1065 for Ltd., an entity whose relationship with the petitioner is not 
clearly explained or established. The evidence submitted by the petitioner indicates that . 
Ltd. is owned by another unidentified company, LLC, and an individual 
owner. As such, the tax documentation submitted is of little probative value and provides little 
insight into verifying whether the petitioner is doing business. Additionally, the petitioner did not 
submit any other supporting documentation to support its regular transaction of goods and services, 
such as purchase orders, invoices , contracts, or other documentation undoubtedly incidental to the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
sale of homes, which the petitioner states that it regularly completes. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matt er of Soffici , 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasur e Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). Therefore, the petitioner has failed to establish that 
the petitioner does business as necessary to demonstrate it is a qualifying organization. 
Likewise, the petitioner has not submitted adequate evidence to demonstrate that any of the foreign 
entities identified on the record are doing business. In fact, on appeal, the petitioner has identified a 
different foreign entity, _ Ltd., stated to have been 
formed as a limited liability company with approximately $100 in capital in November 2009, whereas 
it previously identified a foreign entity formed with $1,200,000 in capital in 2004. A petitioner may 
not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. See Matter of lzummi , 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc . Comm 'r 1998). Regardless , 
beyond the discrepancies in the record regarding the name of the claimed related entity abroad, the 
petitioner has submitted little evidence that any of these entities are doing business as defined by the 
regulations. 
In conclusion, the petitioner has failed to consistently articulate and document the identity of the 
beneficiary's foreign employer, and it has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it has a 
foreign branch, affiliate, subsidiary or parent that is currently doing business. As such, the petitioner 
has not demonstrated that it has a qualifying relationship with a foreign entity. For this reason, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
B. Specialized Knowledge 
Beyond the decision of the director , the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that 
the beneficiary has been or will be employed in a position that requires specialized knowledge, as 
required at section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15). 
In support of the petition, the petitioner stated that its relationship with a foreign entity in China 
"yielded great results" in "the development of our Steel Tile and Electric Welding methods." 
Consistent with this claimed expertise, the petitioner explained the beneficiary ' s employment with the 
foreign entity: 
[The beneficiary] began his employment with our subsidiary office in 
July of 2006. He had over twenty (20) years of experience in the construction 
industry prior to joining our subsidiary office. In the two years with our 
office prior to his temporary transfer to the U.S., he worked exclusively 
as a Steel Tile and Electrical Welding Specialist where he mastered the use of 
techniques which involves the assembly of color and steel tile and electric 
welding. He also mastered the use of the techniques which involves the steel 
structure profession that can be sub-divided into light steel structures, high-level 
steel structures, housing steel structures, spatial steel structures, and bridge steel 
structures; he worked with steel tiles that were produced with suppression 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
molding, using high gradient multi-step tiling; he made the tiling cascade with 
three dimensional molding. In the electric welding area, he mastered flat welding, 
spot welding, continuous welding, and other welding methods. 
The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary had gained expertise in the company's proprietary steel 
tile and electrical welding techniques, and therefore that he was transferred to the United States due to 
this knowledge. The petitioner further stated that the beneficiary worked on projects in both in the 
United States and abroad using techniques unique to the company, including "working with steel tiles 
that are produced with suppression molding , using high gradient multi-step tiling; making the tiling 
cascade with three dimensional modeling," resembling "old world roof tiling." The petitioner noted 
that the beneficiary "may" train others pursuant to his position in the United States. 
In the RFE, the director requested additional evidence to verify that the beneficiary was employed 
abroad for at least one year out of three years prior to his entry into the United States, including the 
beneficiary ' s pay, personnel and training records, and a letter from the beneficiary's supervisor 
explaining his experience with the foreign entity. Further, the director requested that the petitioner 
submit additional evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary acted abroad, and would act in the 
United States in a specialized knowledge capacity, including but not limited to: (1) organizational 
charts for the U.S. and foreign entities listing all employees in the beneficiary's immediate 
department by name and job title with a summary of their duties; (2) letters from authorized 
representatives of the U.S. and foreign entities describing the beneficiary 's specialized knowledge 
and explaining how his knowledge was different from that for similar positions in the industry, the 
minimum time it would take to obtain the knowledge, and significant assignments completed by the 
beneficiary; (3) the beneficiary's employment history, including training courses completed by him, 
their duration, and certificates of completion, where applicable; and (4) a description of how many 
other workers employed by the company hold knowledge similar to that possessed by the beneficiary. 
In response to the director's specific requests regarding the beneficiary's specialized knowledge, the 
petitioner merely stated that United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) had 
previously approved the beneficiary's initial L-lB nonimmigrant visa and a subsequent two year 
extension, and requested that it now grant the current one year extension to "allow him to complete 
the projects he is involved with." The petitioner also submitted a foreign organizational chart 
indicating that the beneficiary was a member of the "material and finished products export 
department," which included six other employees. The foreign employer stated that fellow 
department member was "is in charge of cabinet design, purchasing roof materials 
and installation," that and worked in "cabinet, countertop and tile designing 
and production areas," and that and were "responsible for 
communication with the mills and shipment of production." Lastly, the chart indicated that the 
beneficiary worked with "fence installation, iron balcony and electric welding." 
Following a review of the petitioner's assertions and the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he will be employed in a 
specialized knowledge capacity as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
In visa pet1t10n proceedings, the burden is on the petitiOner to establish eligibility. Matter of 
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence 
that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
376 (AAO 2010). In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality. Id. The director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. 
In order to establish eligibility, the petitioner must show that the individual had at least one prior year 
of employment abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
The statutory definition of specialized knowledge at Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act is comprised of 
two equal but distinct subparts. First, an individual is considered to be employed in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge if that person "has a special knowledge of the company product and 
its application in international markets." Second, an individual is considered to be serving in a 
capacity involving specialized knowledge if that person "has an advanced level of knowledge of 
processes and procedures of the company." See also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). The petitioner 
may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge satisfies either 
prong of the definition. 
Once the 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. USCIS cannot make a factual determination regarding the beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of the 
claimed specialized knowledge, describe how such knowledge is typically gained within the 
organization, and explain how and when the beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneficiary's 
knowledge is "special" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's 
knowledge against that of others in the petitioning company and/or against others holding comparable 
positions in the industry. The ultimate question is whether the petitioner has met its burden of 
demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary ' s knowledge or expertise is 
advanced or special, and that the beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 
In the present matter, the petitioner provided almost none of the evidence requested by the director 
relevant to demonstrating that the beneficiary holds specialized knowledge, but merely relied on prior 
approvals granting the beneficiary L-1B status. As noted above, the regulation states that the 
petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her discretion, may deem 
necessary. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(viii). The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further 
information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time 
the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b )(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence 
that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b )(14). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Here, the petitioner has submitted no evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is 
special or advanced. The petitioner failed to submit letters from authorized representatives of the 
U.S. and foreign entities describing the beneficiary's specialized knowledge. The petitioner has not 
explained how his knowledge is different from others similarly placed in the industry or offered a 
comparison of the beneficiary against similarly placed workers both within and outside the company. 
The petitioner has not articulated the minimum time it would take for another to obtain the 
beneficiary's knowledge, or described significant assignments completed by the beneficiary. Indeed, 
although the beneficiary is stated to have been working with the petitioner since 2008, no details or 
documentation related to his employment in the United States are provided. Likewise, although the 
petitioner stated that the beneficiary had over twenty years of experience in construction prior to 
working for the foreign entity, the beneficiary has not provided details regarding this employment, 
the knowledge gained in previous positions, or documentary evidence to support his asserted twenty 
years of experience. The petitioner has not articulated any training completed by the beneficiary or 
stated how long it would take another employee to gain the knowledge of the beneficiary, nor 
substantiated this with documentation. In fact, a job advertisement for the beneficiary's position in 
the United States indicates that the position only requires a high school diploma and no other 
discernable job requirement s, such as the beneficiary's claimed extensive experience in metal work. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm 'r 1972)). Therefore, 
the evidence submitted fails to establish that the beneficiary was employed, or will be employed in a 
qualifying specialized knowledge capacity. 
As noted, in lieu of submitting the specific evidence of the director, the petitioner states that USCIS 
has previously approved two other L-lB nonimmigrant petitions for the beneficiary, and as such, 
deference should be afforded to these prior approvals. The director's decision does not indicate 
whether he reviewed the prior approvals of the other nonimmigrant petitions. Furthermore, the 
AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals 
and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved previous nonimmigrant petitions 
on behalf of the beneficiary , the AAO is not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a 
service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). Additionally, each nonimmigrant 
petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of proof. In 
making a determination of statutory eligibility , USCIS is limited to the information contained in that 
individual record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(16)(ii). If the previous nonimmigrant 
petitions were approved based on the same unsupported and contradictory assertions that are 
contained in the current record, the approval would constitute material and gross error on the part of 
the director. The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not 
been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would not be 
reasonable to suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. 
Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 
(1988). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
In conclusion, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has been or will be employed in a 
position that requires specialized knowledge, as required at section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15). For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
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), aff'd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
III. 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; Matter of Otiende , 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not 
been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.