dismissed L-1B Case: Shipbuilding

(b)(6)
DATE: 
MAY 0 81014 
OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
'U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U, S, Citizenship and Immigrat ion Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachus etts Ave, KW., 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.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with theAAO. 
Thank you, 
/ _Ron Rosenberg 
/~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
WWW;USCiS;gOV 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, initially approved the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
director subsequently issued a notice of intent to revoke the approval of the petition and ultimately issued a notice 
of revocation due to the petitioner's failure to overcome the grounds for revocation. The matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, to classify the beneficiary 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 North Carolina corporation established in February 2007. 
states that it engages in "shipbuilding related consulting service." It claims to be a subsidiary of 
located in China. The petitioner seeks to extend the 
employment of the beneficiary in the specialized knowledge position of "shipfitter supervisor" at an offsite 
work location . . The petitioner failed to specifically identify the actual work location of the beneficiary. 
The director initially approved the petition for a one-and-a-half year period commencing on February 20, 
2012. The director issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke ("NOIR") the approved petition on October 31, 2012. 
In the NOIR, the director notified the petitioner that the Fraud Prevention Unit at the Kentucky Consular 
Center (KCC) has identified and refused visas to a number of the petitioner's applicants because they found 
that the knowledge possessed by the applicants could not be considered an advanced level of expertise in the 
organization's processes and procedures, or special knowledge of the organization, which is not readily 
available in the United States. Additionally, the Fraud Prevention Unit of the KCC visited the foreign entity 
where the corporate HR department was unable to confirm a number of applicants ever worked for the foreign 
entity. The Fraud Prevention Unit also noted that several of the applicants did not speak English, gave 
conflicting statements regarding work history, and were unable to describe their prospective position in the 
United States or its location. 
The director revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary worked for the qualifying foreign entity for one continuous year in tht< three years preceding 
admission to the United States. 
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 for the petitioner asserts that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) failed to consider information submitted in support of the petition and 
misapplied the proper legal standard in its analysis. Counsel submits a brief and 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
States.1 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. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the statutory definition of specializ~d 
knowledge: 
For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered to be serving in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has a special knowledge 
of the company product and its application in international markets or has an advanced level of 
knowledge of processes and procedures of the company. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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. 
II. THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary had at least . 
one year of full-time employment with a qualifying foreign entity within the three-year period preceding the 
beneficiary's admission to the U.S., as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
On the Form I-129, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary commenced employment with the foreign entity 
on March 31, 2009. Where asked to describe the beneficiary's duties for the three years preceding the 
beneficiary's admission to the U.S., the petitioner stated the following: 
• supervise workers engaged in working on high-pressure systems 
• train new workers in use of equipment and tools 
• perform duties as described under SUPERVISOR Master Title 
• inspect completed processing systems to determine conformance to specifications 
• develop new or modify current welding inethods, techniques and procedures 
• do new layouts, fabrication, assemble and installation works [sic] 
The petitioner submitted the beneficiary's resume indicating that from August 2008 to the present, the 
beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity as "shipfitter supervisor;" from January 2007 to July 2008, the 
beneficiary was employed by as "shipfitter specialist;" from January 2006 to 
1 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-lA n?_nimmigrant 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
December 2007, the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity as "shipfitter specialist;" from December 
2002 to December 2005, the beneficiary was employed by as "shipfitter 
specialist;" and from July 1996 to November 2002, the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity as 
"shipfitter." 
In the NOIR, the director instructed the petitioner to submit payroll documents as evidence of the 
beneficiary's employment abroad. The director advised that the payroll documents should establish that the 
beneficiary was employed by a qualifying organization and that the employment was full-time for one 
continuous year within the three years prior to November 7, 2010. The director specifically requested that, 
based on the KCC's findings, the petitioner should provide documentation from the foreign employer on 
company letter and government tax documents identifying the foreign company as the beneficiary's employer. 
In response to the NOIR, the petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity, dated November 20, 2012, 
stating that the beneficiary began his employment at the foreign entity in July 1996 as a "shipfitter," and in 
December 2002, the beneficiary was transferred to one of the foreign entity's affiliates in Japan. In January 
2006, the beneficiary returned to the foreign entity and assumed the position of "shipfitter supervisor" and in 
March 2009, he was transferred to the petitioner in the United States, also as "shipfitter supervisor." The 
petitioner did not provide any information specific to the beneficiary's employment from December 2002 to 
January 2006. 
The petitioner submitted a translation of a salary report for the foreign entity for the year of 2007. The 
translated document shows the beneficiary's name, the month and·year, base salary, and total amount due in 
RMB. The translated document does not specifically identify the actual source of the report, who compiled 
the report, or the run date of the report. The petitioner also submitted the beneficiary's Forms W-2, Wage and 
Tax Statement, for 2010 and 2011 indicating that the beneficiary was employed by the petitioner in the U.S. 
in those years. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from Manager dated November 17, 2012, addressing the KCC's 
visit to the foreign entity's office in China on February 8, 2012. In the letter, states that he "served as 
the host of the meeting and was present during the entire meeting" and the information provided in the NOIR 
is ''completely inaccurate." states that the KCC officers had a list of names and asked 
manager of human resources, to check the computer system in order to verify that the names on the list were 
employees of the foreign entity. states that Mr. verified that all of the names listed were 
employees of the foreign entity and printed an official statement tor the KCC officers including the name of 
the worker, their occupation, dates they worked for the company, and the name of their supervisors. 
states that the KCC officers asked if the listed employees were all first-line supervisors and they answered 
"yes, they are group leaders." states that the KCC officers asked if the listed employees would have 
difficulty working for the subsidiary in the U.S. due to limited English skills and they answered "no because 
they are needed for their ship-building techniques, and a translator would be necessary only in limited 
circumstances." then states that the KCC officers concluded the meeting at that point and said that 
there was no problem and that they would process the pending visa applications as soon as possible. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The director revoked the approval of the petition concluding, that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary worked for the qualifying foreign entity for one continuous year in the three years preceding 
admission to the United States. In revoking the approval of the petition, the director observed that the 
petitioner's evidence of the beneficiary's employment at the qualifying foreign entity consisted only of a copy 
of the beneficiary's 2007 salary report. The director found that "[b ]ased on the concerns identified by the 
Fraud Prevention Unit at the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) in regards to [the petitioner's] employees[1 
employment with the qualifying foreign employer ... an internally generated salary report for one year, alone 
is not sufficient. ... " 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner submitted a six-page letter from the foreign 
entity providing a detailed employment history, a one-year salary report, 
and documentation that the foreign 
entity is a State Owned Enterprise, that is owned and operated by the Chinese government. Counsel further 
contends that "USCIS failed to consider the status of the foreign entity as a SOE, and therefore did not 
account for the fact that the documents provided by the foreign entity carry the weight of the Chinese 
government." 
Neither counsel nor the petitioner submits any additional evidence on appeal. 
Upon review, the evidence in the record is not persuasive. Here, the KCC Fraud Prevention Unit identified 
concerns with the foreign entity's human resource department and its ability to verify the past employment of 
its employees overseas with a qualifying organization. In response to the NOIR, the petitioner submitted an 
internally generated payroll summary allegedly from the foreign entity indicating that the beneficiary was 
paid throughout the year of 2007. The petitioner has not submitted documentary evidence substantiating the 
accuracy or completeness of this summary. The translated document does not include an identifying source 
and the run date of the summary, and there is no indication it is certified by the foreign entity. The petitioner 
also submitted a letter from disputing the KCC Fraud Prevention Unit's findings upon their visit to the 
foreign entity, but failed to submit any tangible evidence to support the dispute. Without documentary 
evidence to support the claim, the assertions of one individual will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 
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)). 
In support of the appeal, Counsel for the petitioner refers to "documentation that the foreign entity is a State 
Owned Enterprise, a company that is owned and operated by the Chinese government." In support of the 
petition, the petitioner submitted a corporate business license for the foreign entity, dated 2008, that stated the 
company was established on December 3, 1996. The translated document lists the following information: 
License-issuing authority: 
Name of enterprise 
Address 
Legal representatives 
Registered fund 
Business nature: Ownership by the whole people 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
Operating procedure 
Business scope 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Blank 
The petitioner also submitted a translated "consolidated balance sheet," dated December 31, 2010, and 
translated pages of the foreign entity's website. It is unclear how this evidence establishes that the foreign 
entity is owned by the Chinese government or how any documents internally generated by the foreign entity 
constitute documentation issued by the Chinese government. This information, combined with the 2007 
salary report, is not 
sufficient evidence of the beneficiary's employment at the foreign entity. As noted above, 
the translated internally generated payroll summary does not identify the actual source of the report with any 
specificity, does not identify who compiled the report, or the run date of the report. Accordingly, it is also 
insufficient to establish that the beneficiary had at least one year of full-time employment with a qualifying 
foreign entity within the three-year period preceding the filing of the petition, as required by . 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(3)(iii). Furthermore, the beneficiary's resume states that he was employed at the foreign entity and at 
throughout the entire year of 2007, the only year where the petitioner provides a 
salary report for the beneficiary. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the beneficiary had one year of full­
time employment with the qualifying foreign entity. 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 (BIA 1988). 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. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Due to the inconsistencies and deficiencies listed above, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
had at least one year of full-time employment with a qualifying foreign entity within the three-year period 
preceding the filing of the petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. EMPLOYMENT IN A SPECIALIZED CAP A CITY 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established whether the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and would be employed in the United States in a position that requires specialized 
knowledge. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the statutory definition of specialized 
knowledge: 
For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered to be serving in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has a special knowledge 
of the company product and its application in international markets or has an advanced level of 
knowledge of processes and procedures of the company. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge as: 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[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 petitioner stated on the Form 1-129 that it has 43 current employees in the United States; On the Form 
1-129 Supplement L, the petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States as follows: 
"Provide consulting services to U.S. shipyards regarding the techniques and strategies employed in 
creating shipfitting plans and supervising shipfitting staff." In support ofthe petition, the petitioner submitted 
a two-page letter describing its current projects and the beneficiary's qualifications as follows: "As a result of 
his experience with our parent company, [the beneficiary] is qualified to serve in the capacity of a specialized 
worker as a Shipfitter Supervisor." 
The petitioner submitted the beneficiary's resume listing his work experience as follows: 
a. August 2008- Present. Corporation, Shipfitter Supervisor 
• evaluate existing methods and develop · more efficient ship fitting methods, 
techniques and procedures. 
• work execution according to the valid quality standards. 
• make daily work plan. 
• diagnose, troublshoot, and solve ship-fitting problem. 
b. January 2007- July 2008. Shipfitter Specialist. 
• do new layouts, fabrication, assembly and installation works. 
• diagnose, troubleshoot, and solve ship-fitting problem. 
• organize the needed transportation equipment. 
c. January 2006 - December 2007. Corporation, Shipfitter 
Specialist. 
• do new layouts, fabrication, assembly and installation works. 
• inspects installation of equipment. 
• diagnose, troubleshoot, and solve ship-fitting problem. 
The petitioner did not provide any additional description or information relating to the beneficiary's 
specialized or advanced knowledge or his proposed duties in the United States. 
In response to the NOIR, the petitioner submitted a letter from theforeign entity, dated November 20, 2012, 
describing the beneficiary's employment history, qualifications; training, and expertise acquired while 
employed at the foreign entity. The letter states ttiat the beneficiary began his employment at the foreign 
entity in July 1996 as a "shipfitter," and in December 2002, the beneficiary was transferred to one of the 
foreign entity's affiliates in Japan. In January 2006, the beneficiary returned to the foreign entity and assumed 
the position of "shipfitter supervisor." The letter described his duties in the most recent position as follows: 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
In this position, his responsibilities included the following: 
• . diagnose, troubleshoot, and solve 
welding problem 
• do new layouts, fabrication, and repair work 
• perform quality control to check each finished work 
In March 2009, he was transferred to our affiliate in the United States, [the petitioner], to 
serve as a Shipfitter supervisor. 
The letter went on to describe the beneficiary's qualifications and training. The letter stated that the 
beneficiary obtained a "high level skilled shipfitter certificate issued by j' It 
states that the certification includes the completion of several exams and evaluations through the "certificated 
institute" and provides the proper, objective, and scientific observation ·and evaluation of a worker's welding 
technique. The letter did not indicate when the beneficiary obtained this certification. The letter also states 
that the beneficiary attended the "201h advance-level training program" by the foreign entity from June 3, 2006 
to April 17, 2007. The letter states that this is a private training course provided by the foreign entity to train 
their first-line supervisors. The letter goes on to describe its "skill training system," but does not specifically 
describe any courses, particularly the training course the beneficiary attended for 10 months and 11 days. The 
letter then described the beneficiary's "nature of expertise," stating that his special knowledge is derived from 
his 13 years of experience at the foreign entity. The letter states that of the foreign entity's 50,000 skilled 
workers, 
about 5% have made training advancements similar to the beneficiary. The letter states that the 
beneficiary's training includes an expertise in specific methods of vertical and horizontal welding, which the 
beneficiary will teach to local welders in the United States. The letter states that the beneficiary is one of its 
highly-skilled work~rs and based on his training and experience, he has knowledge of shipbuilding techniques 
that only a small percentage of employees have. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the ~eneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or will 
be employed in a position requiring specialized knowledge in the United States. 
In order to establish eligibility for the L-1B visa classification, the petitioner must show that the individual 
has been and will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 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 and 
the proffered position satisfy either prong of the definition. 
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. Once the petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
knowledge, it is the weight and type of evidence which establishes whether or not the beneficiary actually 
possesses specialized knowledge. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 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. 
I d. 
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 special or advanced, and that the beneficiary's position requires 
such knowledge. 
Turning to the question of whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge and will be employed in a capacity requiring specialized knowledge, upon review, the petitioner 
has not demonstrated that this employee possesses knowledge that may be deemed "special" or "advanced" 
under the statutory definition at section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, or that the petitioner will employ the 
beneficiary in a capacity requirin~ specialized knowledge. 
In examining the specialized knowledge of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's description of 
the job duties and the weight of the evidence supporting any asserted specialized knowledge. 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. Merely asserting that the beneficiary possesses "special" or "advanced" 
knowledge will not suffice to meet the petitioner's burden of proof. 
In the present matter, the petitioner has not submitted a position description or list of job duties for the proposed 
position in the United States that adequately describes the beneficiary's actual tasks on a daily basis. The 
petitioner has not described any duties that would require the beneficiary to possess knowledge not possessed 
by other similarly experienced shipfitter welders working at the foreign entity. 
In response to the NOIR, the petitioner provided a letter from the foreign entity stating that the beneficiary 
received advanced training from the foreign entity, specifically a course with duration of 10 months and 11 
days. The letter did not list any additional information regarding this training, including course curriculum, 
basic requirements to be eligible for the training, or the skills obtained in completing the training. 
Considering that the beneficiary would have been in training for almost an entire year, the petitioner could 
have provided some information describing the actual courses and skills learned throughout the training. 
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 
ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
In response to the NOIR, the petitioner specifically stated that one of the beneficiary's duties will be to train 
local workers. This statement indicates that the welding skills obtained by the beneficiary and other petitioner 
staff is not sufficiently specialized and can be readily learned by other individuals who otherwise possess the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
requisite technical background in shipbuilding and welding. Therefore, the AAO cannot determine that the 
beneficiary possesses a level of knowledge that is special or advanced within the company or the industry. 
Although the petitioner repeatedly states that the welding techniques internally developed by the foreign 
entity are specialized or advanced enough to warrant the beneficiary possessing specialized knowledge due to 
his training and experience in the described welding techniques; based on the petitioner's representations, it 
appears that its specialized welding processes and methodologies, while highly effective and valuable to the 
petitioner and the foreign entity, are skills that can be readily learned on-the-job and through training from the 
beneficiary to local workers at client sites, as stated in the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's position. 
For this reason, the petitioner has not established that knowledge of its processes and procedures alone 
constitute specialized knowledge. 
Furthermore, the petitioner does not provide sufficient information relating to the beneficiary's posttlon 
abroad. On the Form 1-129 Supplement L, where asked to describe the beneficiary's duties abroad, the 
petitioner stated "supervise workers engaged in working on high-pressure systems; train new workers in use 
of equipment and tools; perform duties as described under SUPERVISOR Master Title; inspect completed 
processing systems to determine conformance to specifications; develop new or modify current welding 
methods, techniques and procedures; [and] do new layouts, fabrication, assemble and installation works 
[sic]." According to a letter from the foreign entity, the beneficiary performed the same or similar duties 
abroad as those of the proffered position. As determined above, the record is insufficient to support the 
petitioner's claim that the actual duties involve specialized knowledge. As such, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary's position abroad involved specialized knowledge. 
The AAO does not dispute that the ·beneficiary is a skilled and experienced employee who has been, and 
would be, a valuable asset to the petitioner. However, as explained above, the evidence does not distinguish 
the beneficiary's knowledge as more advanced than the knowledge possessed by other people employed by 
the petitioning organization or by workers employed elsewhere. The beneficiary's duties and technical skills, 
while impressive, demonstrate that he possesses knowledge that is common among shipfitting welders and 
supervisors at the foreign entity. Furthermore, it is not clear that the performance of the beneficiary's duties 
would require more than basic proficiency with the company's internal welding processes and methodologies. 
Although the petitioner repeatedly claims that the beneficiary's knowledge is specialized, the petitioner failed 
to provide independent and objective evidence to corroborate such claims. Again, going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
It is reasonable to conclude, and has not been shown otherwise, 'that all shipfitting welders and supervisors 
assigned to the petitioner and their clients must use the same processes and methodologies to train the local 
staff of its clients. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's training, work experience, 
or knowledge of the company's processes is advanced in comparison to that possessed by others employed by 
the petitioner, or that the processes used by the petitioner are substantially different from those used by other 
shipbuilding companies, such that knowledge of such processes alone constitutes specialized knowledge. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
In visa petition 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. at 376. In evaluating the evidence , 
eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence 
. that the beneficiary possesses specialized . knowledge and will be employed in a specialized knowledge 
capacity with the petitioner in the United States. See Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
IV. L-1 VISA REFORM ACT 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that the placement of the beneficiary at 
the unaffiliated employer's worksite is not an arrangement to provide labor for hire in violation of section 
214(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the Act. 
As added by the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004, section 214(c)(2)(F) of,the Act states: 
(F) An alien who will serve in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to an 
employer for purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L) and will be stationed primarily at the 
worksite of an employer other than the petitioning employer or its affiliate, subsidiary, 
or parent shall not be eligible for classification under section 101(a)(15)(L) if-
(i) the alien will be controlled and supervised principally by such unaffiliated 
employer; or 
(ii) the placement of the alien at the. worksite of the unaffiliated employer is 
essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire for the unaffiliated 
employer, rather than a placement in connection with the provision of a product 
or service for which specialized knowledge to the petitioning employer is 
necessary. 
See section 412(a), Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 108-447, Div. I, Title IV, 118 Stat. 2809 (Dec. 
8, 2004). Section 214(c)(2)(F) of the Act is applicable to all L-1B petitions filed after June 6, 2005, including 
petition extensions and amendments for individuals that are 
currently in L-1Bstatus. Id. at§ 412(b). 
The Form I -129 solicits information specifically related to the proscriptions created by the L-1 Visa Reform 
Act. On the Form I-129 Supplement L, at Section 1 Question 13, the form asks if the beneficiary would be 
stationed primarily offsite at the worksite of an unaffiliated employer. If the petitioner answers this question 
in the affirmative, the form then solicits information regarding: 1) how and by whom the beneficiary will be 
controlled and supervised; and 2) the reasons why placement at another worksite is necessary, including a 
description of how the beneficiary's duties relate to the need for his or her specialized knowledge. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
The petitioner answered "yes," indicating the beneficiary would be stationed primarily offsite at the worksite 
of an unaffiliated employer, and answered each question as follows: 
The beneficiary will be supervised solely by the President of [the petitioner], Mr. 
and the executive committee of [the foreign entity] in China .... 
The beneficiary will spend time at numerous shipyards across the United States providing 
consulting services in [the foreign entity's] techniques .... 
The petitioner did not provide any additional information relating to the beneficiary's placement at an offsite 
location. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the placement of the beneficiary at the unaffiliated 
employer's worksite meets the conditions of Section 214(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the Act. 
The L-1 Visa Reform Act amendment was intended to prohibit the outsourcing of L-1B intracompany 
transferees to unaffiliated employers to work with "widely available" computer software and, thus, help 
prevent the displacement of United States workers by foreign labor. See 149 Cong. Rec. S11649, *S11686, 
2003 WL 22143105 (September 17, 2003); see also Sen. Jud. Comm., Sub. on Immigration, Statement for 
Chairman Senator Saxby Chambliss, July 29, · 2003, available at 
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=4fle0899533f7680e78d03281fef82ef&wit_id=4f 
1e0899533f7680e78d03281fef82ef-0-3 (accessed on April 28, 2014). 
If a specialized knowledge beneficiary will be primarily stationed at the worksite of an unaffiliated employer, 
the statute mandates that the petitioner establish both: (1) that the beneficiary will be controlled and 
supervised principally by the petitioner, and (2) that the placement is related to the provision of a product or 
service for which specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning employer is necessary. Section 
214(c)(2)(F) of the Act. These two questions of fact must be established for the record by documentary 
evidence; neither the unsupported assertions of counsel nor the employer will suffice to establish eligibility. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 
1988). 
If the petitioner fails to establish either of these elements, the beneficiary will be deemed ineligible for 
classification as an L-1B intracompany transferee. 
In visa petition 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). Again, 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
1. Supervision and Control 
The petitioner failed to submit any evidence related to the beneficiary's off-site work location or copies of any 
agreements in place with the petitioner's clients. Due to the deficiencies in the record, the AAO finds that the 
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's placement at the unaffiliated employer's worksite meets the 
conditions of section 214(c)(2)(F)(i) of the Act. 
2. Specialized Knowledge Specific to the Petitioning Employer 
The petitioner also failed to provide relevant and probative evidence regarding its provision of a product or 
service at the unaffiliated employer's worksite for which specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning 
employer is necessary. 
The petitioner must demonstrate in the first instance that the beneficiary's offsite employment is connected 
with the provision of the petitioner's product or service which necessitates specialized knowledge that is 
specific to the petitioning employer. Section 214(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the:Act. If the petitioner fails to prove this 
elem~nt, the ben~ficiary's employment will be deemed an impermissible arrangement to provide "labor for 
hire" under the terms of the L-1 Visa Reform Act. !d. 
In the instant matter, the petitioner did not indicate the specific off-site location of the beneficiary's 
employment or the specific services he would be providing to the off-site employer. In its description of the 
beneficiary's duties in the United States, the petitioner simply stated that the beneficiary will provide 
consulting services to U.S. shipyards regarding the foreign entity's techniques and strategies. Based on the 
limited evidence, it appears that the beneficiary's placement at the worksite of the unaffiliated employer 
essentially is an arrangement to provide labor for hire. Based on the description of the beneficiary's duties 
and the lack of evidence that the petitioner provided regarding the beneficiary's services in connection with 
the provision of a product or service directly related to the beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge, the 
AAO finds that it appears the beneficiary will be providing technical support and .enhancement to the client's 
pre-existing shipbuilding processes and methodologies. 
The evidence submitted fails to establish that the beneficiary's placement at the unaffiliated employer's 
worksite meets the conditions of Section 214(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the L-1 Visa Reform Act. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The AAO maintains discretionary authority to review each appeal on a de novo basis. The AAO's de novo 
authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). 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 v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025,1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd 345 F. 
3d 683 (91h Cir. 2003). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. 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. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.