dismissed L-1B Case: Retail Merchandise

U.S. Department off ameland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave 1 
ldenulyriib a.iei~ i~ 
plwent dearly mmm~fed 
in-~persooel- 
FILE: 
Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 205 
Services 
WAC 04 230 51032 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
' I 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: . 
rNSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have bee 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
d 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 230 51032 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
the appeal. 
The petitioner is engaged in retail merchandise. It seeks to temporarily employ the bene 
product procurement manager in the United States, and filed a petition to classify the 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge. The director 
petitioner had established neither that the beneficiary possesses specialized 
intended employment required specialized knowledge. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a otion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel submits a brief and asse s that the 
director's decision was erroneous and that the beneficiary did in fact possess specialized know1 dge of the 
petitioner's processes and procedures and that her employment was vital to the petitioner's expansion .. 
plans. 
:: 
To establish L-1 eligibility, the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section 101(a)(l )(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L). Specifically, within hree years 
preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a qualifying o ganization 
must have employed the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a pecialized 
knowledge capac~ty, for one continuous year. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United 
States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a su sidiary or 
affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
i 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(3) further states that an individual petition filed on Form -129 shall 
be accompanied by: 
P 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ th alien 
are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
i 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment broad 
with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petit' n. 
6 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or spec 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the 
education, training, and employment qualifies himlher to perform the 
the United States; however, the work in the United States need 
which the alien performed abroad. 
alized 
WAC 04 230 51032 
Page 3 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 11 84(c)(2)(B), provides the following: ! 
This matter presents two related, but distinct, issues: (1) whether the beneficiary possesses 
knowledge; and, (2) whether the proposed employment is in a capacity that requires 
knowledge. 
For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered to be serving in a 
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has 
knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets 
advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company. 
specialized 
specialized 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines "specialized knowledge" as I 
[Slpecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization's prod ct, 
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. I 
In a letter submitted with the petition dated August 2, 2004, the petitioner explained that the 
had four years of procurement experience with the petitioner's Mexican affiliate and that sh 
specialized knowledge of the petitioner's proprietary processes and procedures. With re 
beneficiary's proposed position in the United States, the petitioner stated: 
As [plroduct [plrocurement [mlanager in the U.S., [the beneficiary] will be provi 
opportunity to develop materials management strategies and product proc 
programs leading to the [petitioner's] group's competitiveness in North 
America, and thus contribute to the expansion of the petitioner's business. 
beneficiary] will work closely with senior management in the devel 
implementation of the procurement programs in the U.S. for product[s] sol 
American market. She will be setting policies, and monitoring a 
performance of the company's procurement activities. She will then 
activities and develop new operations according to established corporate 
policies, and make recommendations to senior management on other op 
purpose of this important mission is to develop consistent material 
procedures and policies, data access, and utilization standard throughout th 
increase awareness of standards that have been devised. 
In addition, a specific list of her proposed U.S. duties included the following: I 
Responsible for procurement of products necessary for [the petitioner's] store 
Mexico; 
Coordinate vendor network expansion; 
Verify compliance with all legal requirements; 
WAC 04 230 51032 
Page 4 
With regard to her background, the petitioner stated that she held a Bachelor's degree in 
El Centro de Ensenanza Tecnica y Superior (CETYS) in Mexicali, Baja 
employed by the foreign entity since 2000. The petitioner further stated: 
Develop tactical and time objectives for Value 1 product sourcing; 
Develop direct contacts with manufacturers and reduce company's dependency 
distributors; 
Look for logistic savings as part of an overall goal of COGS reduction; 
Research tariff classification; 
Develop and maintain updated database of necessary permits and requirements 
move products; 
Analyze and classify all products to be exported to Mexico; 
Negotiate all necessary permits, authorizations and governmental formalities 
export of products; 
Responsible for reviewing and approving all shipments prior to export 
Mexican broker; 
Manage comprehensive information for decision making; and 
Daily review of official report to accommodate changes in procedures, 
requirements, rights and opportunities. 
As [bjusiness [dlevelopment [mlanager for [the foreign entity], [the benefici 
responsible for the Home DCcor and Personal Accessories category of [the 
entity's] products. Her department accounts for 10% of all of [the foreign entity' 
sales. (The beneficiary] is responsible for the planning, organizing, and supervi 
the business development by proper product procurement and marketing of hom 
and personal accessory products for over 80 stores located in Mexico. [The ben 
oversees and directs a staff of professional workers, and controls procure 
merchandising of 10% of all products distributed throughout [the foreign entity' 
Mexico. She is in-charge of managing the overall daily operations of the comp 
decor and personal accessories business activities and is responsible for 
decision-making regarding all aspects of the company's procurement and 
processes as they relate to home decor and personal accessories for [the forei 
stores in Mexico. This includes the development of annual strategic and tacti 
well as the development of a high performance merchandising team. The Tr 
comprehensive knowledge in international business and border trade analysis. 
comfortable working with computers and other information systems to acc 
objectives. 
on 
to 
for 
with 
In a request for evidence dated August 24, 2004, the director requested additional informatio 
the beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge. Specifically, the director requested that 
provide the following: (1) an explanation with regard to how the beneficiary's duties 
intended duties in the United States were different or unique from those of other 
employees of the foreign entity; (2) an explanation with regard to how the 
WAC 04 230 5 1032 
Page 5 
exclusive and significantly unique in comparison to that of others employed by the petitioner 
persons in the field; and (3) a description of the impact upon the petitioner's business if the 
unable to obtain the beneficiary's services, and what alternative action would be 
responsibilities. 
The petitioner submitted a response on September 15, 2004. As the petitioner's response 
record, it will not be repeated in its entirety herein. With regard to the beneficiary's 
petitioner explained that the beneficiary had not undergone formal training at the forelgn 
the petitioner explained that the beneficiary had acquired her specialized 
performance of important job duties" since the initial establishment of the 
re-emphasized her four years of experience with the foreign entity, and 
afforded her significant responsibility within the foreign entity and thus 
level of knowledge of the companies procedures. Furthermore, the 
training program in the United States would not instill the 
upon other employees absent a significant interruption in the 
With regard to the beneficiary's impact on the petitioner, the petitioner claimed that it was fa ed with an 
increased product demand, and that "without [the beneficiary's] specialized knowledge, th company 
would not be able to sufficiently develop and implement a viable purchasing program to f cilitate the 
increase in demand." The petitioner further contended that absent the beneficiary, the petiti ner would 
incur significant financial losses resulting from the delayed development of additional retail ou lets. 
i 
The director determined that the record did not establish employment of the beneficiary in 
requires specialized knowledge, nor did it establish that the beneficiary possesses specializ 
The director noted that the job duties outlined by the petitioner constituted "the type of acti 
to most any responsible business position in the field of purchasing," and, therefore, 
product procurement manager does not warrant the expertise of someone possess 
knowledge. Additionally, the director stated that the beneficiary's job duties did not 
beneficiary's knowledge as superior or unique from other similarly qualified corpo 
Finally, the director concluded that the beneficiary's duties were merely the standard 
similarly-employed persons working in the fields of purchasing, marketing, or sal 
consequently denied the petition. 
Counsel submits a lengthy brief on appeal in support of the petitioner's assertions that the 
possesses specialized knowledge and that the intended employment requires specialized 
Counsel addresses each of the director's po~nts individually, yet fails to provide any 
objective evidence which would distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge from that 
qualified persons with a marketing degree. 
Counsel further refers to the 1994 Associate Commissioner's memorandum 
beneficiary possesses knowledge of a product or process which cannot be easily 
another individual, which is a characteristic of specialized knowledge according to 
Memo. from James A. Puleo, Acting Exec. Assoc. Comrnr., Office of 
WAC 04 230 51032 
Page 6 
Naturalization Sew., to All Dist. Dir. et al., Interpretation of Special Knowledge, 1-2 (Mar h 9, 1994) 
(copy on file with Am. Immig. Law Assn.). Specifically, counsel asserts that "the Beneficia possesses 
specialized knowledge based on her understanding and familiarity with [the petitioner's] proprietary 
operating system." In conclusion, counsel claims that the beneficiary's knowledge, coupled w'th her four 
years of experience, is essential to the continued financial viability of the petitioner's enterprise 
i 
On review, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficia 
specialized knowledge or that the intended position in the United States requires specialized 
When examining the specialized knowledge capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(3)(ii). As required in 
petitioner must submit a detailed description of the services to be performed sufficient to 
knowledge. Id. 
In the present matter, the petitioner has provided ample description of the beneficiary's intended 
in the U.S. entity and her responsibilities as a product procurement manager. However, the peti 
sufficiently documented how the beneficiary's performance of the proposed job duties dist 
knowledge as specialized. The petitioner repeatedly states throughout the record that the b 
noteworthy and in-depth knowledge of the foreign entity's and the petitioner's operational p 
operating structure. The petitioner further asserts that the beneficiary possesses specialized 
a result of her four years of work experience in the foreign company, all of which 
prpcurement. Counsel for the petitioner, however, offers no explanation as to the educat 
qualifications necessary for a product procurement manager and merely cites to the 
marketing degree as an extra qualification. However, the petition fails to discuss the reason 
claim that the beneficiary, and not another similarly educated person with four years of 
procurement, must perform the duties of the proffered position. Nor does the peti 
documentation that the beneficiary received training or work assignments focused spec 
petitioner's procurement policies or proprietary operating system. In fact, the petitioner c 
beneficiary received no formal training and acquired her knowledge fiom her four yea 
experience with the foreign entity. While the petitioner and counsel assert that the benefici 
with specialized knowledge, the lack of specificity pertaining to the beneficiary's wo 
training, particularly in comparison to others employed by the petitioner and in th 
distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge as specialized. Without documentary evide 
claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Matt 
I&N Dec. 533,534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BLA 1980 
It is also appropriate for the AAO to look beyond the stated job duties and consider the 
beneficiary's knowledge of the business's product or service, management operations, 
process. Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. 1 17, 120 (Comm. 198 1) (citing Matter of 
618 (R.C. 1970) and Matter ofLeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 816 (R.C. 1971)).' As stated 
I Although the cited precedents pre-date the current statutory definition of "specialized 
AAO finds them instructive. Other than deleting the former requirement that 
WAC 04 230 5 1032 
Page 7 
in Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. 49, 52 (Comm. 1982), when considering whether the 
possessed specialized knowledge, "the LeBlanc and Raulin decisions did not find that the 
inherently qualified the beneficiaries for the classifications sought." Rather, the 
considered to have unusual duties, skills, or knowledge beyond that of a skilled 
Commissioner also provided the following clarification: 
A distinction can be made between a person whose skills and knowledge enable hi or 
her to produce a product through physical or skilled labor and the person who is emplo ed 
primarily for his ability to carry out a key process or function which is importan or 
essential to the business' operation. 
I 
Id. at 53. In the present matter, the evidence of record demonstrates that the beneficiary is m 
an employee whose skills and experience enable her to perform procurement duties, rath 
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 
comparisons in order to determine what constitutes specialized knowledge. The te 
knowledge" is not an absolute concept and cannot be clearly defined. As observe 
"[slimply put, specialized knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a plain 
Supp. at 15. The Congressional record specifically states that the L-1 category was 
personnel." See generally, H.R. REP. No. 91-851, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750. The te 
denotes a position within the petitioning company that is "of crucial importance." Web 
College Dictionary 605 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 2001). In general, all employees 
considered "important" to a petitioner's enterprise. If an employee did not contr 
economic success of an enterprise, there would be no rational economic reason to e 
employee of "crucial importance" or "key personnel" must rise above the level of 
employee. Accordingly, based on the definition of "specialized knowledge" and t 
related to that term, the AAO must make comparisons not only between 
knowledge employee and the general labor market, but also between that empl 
the petitioner's workforce. 
to be "proprietary," the 1990 Act did not significantly alter the definition of "specialized 
the prior Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) interpretation of the term. The 
Report does not reject, criticize, or even refer to any specific INS regulation or 
interpreting the term. The Committee Report simply states that the Committee 
statutory definition because of "[vlarying [i.e., not specifically incorrect] 
Rep. No. 101-723(I), at 69, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6749. Beyond that, 
restates the tautology that became section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Id. The 
cited cases, as well as Matter of Penner, remain useful guidance 
"specialized knowledge" L-1B classification. 
WAC 04 230 5 1032 
Page 8 
Here, the petitioner fails to make reference to the reason that it believes that the beneficiary's 
is more advanced than other procurement managers in the corporate world. Again, the 
provided any information pertaining to other procurement managers employed by the 
the petitioner distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge, work experience, or 
employees. The lack of evidence in the record makes it impossible to 
knowledge of the petitioner's alleged proprietary operating system and 
beneficiary's role is "of crucial importance" to the organization. 
provided any documentation or discussion of a proprietary operating 
and of which the beneficiary possessed expertise. Simply 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of 
proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of Clallfornia, 14 I&N 
may be correct to say that the beneficiary is a highly skilled 
not enough to bring the beneficiary to the level of "key personnel." 
Reviewing the Congressional record, the Commissioner concluded in Matter of Penner that a 
reading of the specialized knowledge provision, such that it would include skilled 
technicians, is not warranted. The Commissioner emphasized that that the specialized know 
class~fication was not intended for "all employees with any level of specialized knowledg 
Perzner, 18 I&N Dec. at 53. Or, as noted in Matter of Colley, "[mlost employees today are 
have been trained and given specialized knowledge. However, in view of the House Repo 
concluded that all employees with specialized knowledge or performing highly techn 
eligible for classification as intracompany transferees." 18 I&N Dec. at 119. Accordi 
Penner, "[sluch a conclusion would permit extremely large numbers of persons to qua 
visa" rather than the "key personnel" that Congress specifically intended. 18 I&N Dec 
17-56, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15 (concluding that Congress did not intend for the specia 
capacity to extend to all employees with specialized knowledge, but rather to "key 
"executives.") 
Moreover, in Matter of Penner, the Commissioner discussed the legislative intent behind the 
the specialized knowledge category. 18 I&N Dec. 49 (Comm. 1982). The decision noted tha 
House Report, H.R. No. 91-851, stated that the number of admissions under the L-1 classific 
not be large" and that "[tlhe class of persons eligible for such nonimmigrant visas is narrowly 
will be carefully regulated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service." Id. at 5 1. The decis'on 
noted that the House Report was silent on the subject of specialized knowledge, but that during 
of the sub-committee hearings on the bill, the Chairman specifically questioned witnesses on t 
skill necessary to qualify under the proposed "L" category. In response to the Chairman's 
reation of 
the 1970 
tion "will 
rawn and 
further 
he course 
e level of 
questions, 
various witnesses responded that they understood the legislation would allow "high-level 
"experts," individuals with "unique" skills, and that it would not include "lower categories" of 
"skilled craft workers." Matter of Penner, id. at 50 (citing H.R. Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. 
Immigration Act of 1970: Hearings on H.R. 445, 91st Cong. 210, 218, 223, 240, 248 (Nove.mber 
1969)). 
people," 
vrorkers or 
Comm., 
12, 
WAC 04 230 51032 
Page 9 
The petitioner also asserted that the beneficiary's knowledge is specialized because she " 
merchandise lots and opportunities will result in a profitable procurement." Additionally, in 
1994 INS memorandum, counsel claims on appeal that the beneficiary's knowledge is 
petitioner's productivity, competitiveness, image and financial position, and is critical to 
growth and expansion currently experienced by the petitioner. While the beneficiary's skills 
may contribute to the successfulness of the petitioning organization, this factor, by itself, do 
the possession of specialized knowledge. The AAO notes that, with regard to counsel's reli 
Associate Commissioner's memorandum, the memorandum was intended solely as a guide 
will not supersede the plain language of the statute or regulations. Although the memoran 
as a statement of policy and as an aid in interpreting the law, it was intended to serve as 
reflects the writer's analysis of the issue. Therefore, while the beneficiary's contrib 
success of the corporation may be considered, the regulations specifically require that 
an "advanced level of knowledge" of the organization's process and procedures, or a ' 
the petitioner's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, or management. 
5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). As determined above, the beneficiary does not satisfy the requi 
specialized knowledge. 
In the present matter, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's training, work xpenence, 
or knowledge in the field of procurement is more advanced than the knowledge possessed by others 
employed by the petitioner, or in the industry. It is clear that the petitioner considers the benefici to be an 
important employee of the organization. The AAO, likewise, does not dispute the fact that the b neficiary's 
knowledge has allowed her to competently perform her job in the foreign entity. However, the successfbl 
completion of one's job duties does not distinguish the beneficiary as "key personnel;" nor does t establish 
employment in a specialized knowledge capacity. 1 
Nor does the record establish that the proposed U.S. position requires specialized 
contends that an increase in product demand necessitates the services of the 
contends that the beneficiary's knowledge of specific markets is essential 
While the position of product procurement manager may require a 
relevant existing markets and opportunities, there is no documentation, 
a product procurement manager must possess advanced, 
regulations and the Act. Again, the assertions of 
Obaigbena, supra; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, supra. 
Furthermore, it is noted that on appeal, counsel contends "the knowledge and experience 
[the beneficiary] qualifies her as a person possessing specialized knowledge, even ifthe proposed 
possessed by 
specific 
job duties in the U.S. are not of a specialized nature." (Emphasis added). Counsel's statement 
specifically disregards the requirement that the beneficiary be employed in the United 
specialized knowledge capacity, as set forth in 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The beneficiary's 
and experience fail to qualify her for the benefit sought if she will not be employed in the United 
a specialized knowledge capacity. Here, counsel incorrectly relies on a mistaken belief that 
requirement for an alien to be classified as an intracompany transferee is the continuous employment 
one out of the previous three years in a foreign parent, or the such, of the petitioner." 
St~tes in a 
qual'fications 
States in 
"the only 
of 
Counsel 
WAC 04 230 5 1032 
Page 10 
erroneously cites to "INA tj 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(A)" as the authority for this statement, which is in 
a part of the Immigration and Nationality Act but a provision of the Code of Federal Regul 
provision, found at 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(A), merely defines the term "intracompany trans 
not an actual regulation encompassing the requirements for obtaining a specialized kno 
Counsel's reliance on this provision is therefore unpersuasive in this matter. 
The legislative history for the term "specialized knowledge" provides ample support for 
interpretation of the term. In the present matter, the petitioner has not demonstrated that th 
should be considered a member of the "narrowly drawn" class of individuals possessinl 
knowledge. See 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, supra at 16. Based on the evidence prl 
concluded that the beneficiary does not possess specialized knowledge; nor would the bt 
employed in a capacity requiring specialized knowledge. For this reason, the appeal will be c 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains 
the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
the director's decision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
tuality not 
ons. This 
reel' and is 
edge visa. 
restrictive 
,eneficiary 
ipecialized 
:nted, it is 
:ficiary be 
nissed. 
tirely with 
cordingly,