dismissed L-1B Case: Restaurant Management

identiffring data ddeted to 
+ prwW cL, , ir -:Y- 
invasion of privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
!. 
FILE: WAC 02 223 50571 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 1 0 2807 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 1 0 1 (a)( 1 5)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 02 223 50571 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seelung to employ the beneficiary in the position of manager 
as an L-1B nonimmigrant intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 
10 1(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner 
states that it is engaged in the international trade and restaurant management business. The petitioner claims 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary for a period of three years. 
On November 4, 2005, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the position offered to the beneficiary requires someone with specialized knowledge or that the beneficiary 
has such knowledge. ' 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on November 29, 2005. The director declined to treat the 
appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On the Form I-290B Notice of 
Appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts: "We believe that the beneficiary will be employed in a capacity 
as restaurant manager that requires specialized knowledge." 
Counsel indicated on Form I-290B that she would submit a brief and/or evidence to the AAO within 30 
days. As no additional evidence has been incorporated into the record, the AAO contacted counsel by 
facsimile on December 7, 2006, to request that counsel acknowledge whether the brief and/or evidence 
were subsequently submitted, and, if applicable, to afford counsel an opportunity to re-submit the 
documents. To date, counsel has not responded to the AAO's request. Accordingly, the record will be 
considered complete. 
To establish eligibility under section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States, a firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed 
the beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States 
temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate 
thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
Counsel's general objections to the denial of the petition, without specifically identifying any errors on 
the part of the director, are simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical conclusions the 
' The director initially denied the instant petition on May 15, 2003 concluding that the petitioner had not 
established that the beneficiary had been or would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity. On appeal, the AAO withdrew the director's decision and remanded the petition to the director, 
instructing him to request additional evidence in support of the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary is 
qualified as an intracompany transferee in a specialized knowledge capacity, as indicated on the Form 
1-129 petition. The director requested additional evidence on July 5, 2004 and the petitioner submitted a 
timely response, prior to the issuance of the director's decision dated November 29,2005. 
WAC 02 223 50571 
Page 3 
director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. The assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I & N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Laureano, 19 I & N 
Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I & N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
On review, the record as presently constituted is not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has been 
employed in a specialized knowledge position 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. $ 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. 
Although the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's proposed U.S. position requires specialized knowledge, 
the petitioner has not adequately articulated sufficient basis to support this claim. The petitioner has provided 
a description of the beneficiary's proposed responsibilities as a general manager for a restaurant that 
specializes in Sichuan cuisine, however, the description does not mention the application of any specialized 
or advanced body of knowledge which would distinguish the beneficiary's role from that of other general 
managers employed by the petitioner or employed in a Sichuan restaurant within the industry at large. Going 
on record without 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. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary "has both the 
professional experience in creating recipe[s], preparing and coolung food, and training cooks; and 
administrative experience in directing and supervising the daily operations of a restaurant." It appears that the 
petitioner is asserting that the beneficiary's specialized knowledge is his dual knowledge in coolung Sichuan 
food and managing a restaurant. However, the petitioner has not explained how the petitioner's processes and 
'procedures in preparing Sichuan cuisine differs from other restaurants that provide a similar cuisine. Based 
upon the lack of supporting evidence, the AAO cannot determine whether the U.S. position requires someone 
who possesses knowledge that rises to the level of specialized knowledge as defined at 8 C.F.R. 
€j 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
Furthermore, the petitioner did not explain the specific training the beneficiary received in Sichuan cuisine. 
According to the Form 1-129, the beneficiary was employed by the foreign company as a deputy general 
manager from October 1999 until September 2001. The beneficiary also held the position of Chef and 
Manager of Food Department for the foreign company for two years. Although the beneficiary was 
employed by the foreign company to work in its restaurants for approximately five years, the petitioner has 
not provided any documentation of training courses or explanation of the beneficiary's practical experience. 
Thus, the AAO cannot determine if the beneficiary's practical experience included training in the specific 
application of the company's methods and procedure for preparing Sichuan cuisine that other peers in the 
industry could not learn. Although the beneficiary has several years of experience with the foreign company, 
the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to indicate that ths experience rises to the level of 
specialized knowledge and instead may be experience that is similar to any employee who has worked in a 
similar role in the industry for several years. 
As noted by the director, the record does not distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge as more advanced than 
the knowledge possessed by other Sichuan chefs and restaurant managers. Further, as the petitioner has 
failed to document any specific training or otherwise describe or document the purported knowledge, its 
WAC 02 223 50571 
Page 4 
claims are not persuasive. There is no indication that the beneficiary has any knowledge that exceeds that of 
any Sichuan chef and manager, or that he has received special training in the company's methodologies or 
processes which would separate him from any other restaurant manager employed with the foreign company. 
Furthermore, it appears that the petitioner's Sichuan cuisine is built on recipes available outside of the 
petitioner's group, and known by other Sichuan chefs in the field. 
The AAO does not dispute that the petitioner's organization, like any restaurant, has its own internal 
processes and methodologies, andlor secret ingredients or recipes, which it applies to its restaurant's 
menu's. However, there is no evidence in the record to establish that the beneficiary's knowledge of these 
processes and methodologies is particularly advanced in comparison to his peers, that the processes 
themselves cannot be easily transferred to its U.S. employees or to professionals who have not previously 
worked with the organization, that the U.S.-based staff does not actually possess the same knowledge, or 
that the U.S. position offered actually requires someone with the claimed "advanced knowledge." The 
petitioner has simply submitted no documentary evidence in support of its assertions or counsel's 
assertions that the beneficiary's skills and knowledge of the foreign entity's processes, procedures and 
methodologies would differentiate him from any other similarly employed manager within the petitioner's 
group or within the industry. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 165. Based on the evidence presented, the director properly concluded that the beneficiary has not 
been employed abroad and would not be employed in the United States in a capacity involving 
specialized knowledge. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the 
party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal. 
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. $ 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.