dismissed L-1B Case: Telecommunications

U.S. Departmenl of Homeland Securitj 
ide~~~tq~~r~? .' . ,.. :rG%ied iki 
20 Masxichusetts Ave , N W . Rm ,43042 
Washington, DC 20529 
y:- - qyys4 cdemiy ~nww~=~~~& 
, ,mh~ df ~&BCY U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: SRC-04-116-50588 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUW 2 8 2005 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Imlnigration 
'. and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) . '. 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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. 
A- Pi% .#id- 
obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrathe Appeals Office 
SRC-04-1 16-50588 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The matter 
is now beforc the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to etnploy the beneficiary as an L-1B nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee with specialized luiowledge pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(] 5)(L) of the Immigration and 
' 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ I lOI(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of 
employ the beneficiary for three years as a general manager. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that: (1) the bcneficiaiy 
possesses specialized knowledge; and (2) the prospective duties in the United States require an individual 
with specialized knowledge. 
The petitioner subsequelltly filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge, and that such knowledge is required for his position in the United States. In 
support of these assertions, counsel submits a brief, additional evidence, and previously submitted documents. 
'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, 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(15)(L). 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 uithin the three years preceding the beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. 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 subiidiary or affiliate 
thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 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 (I)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed dcscription 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 elnployment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial. executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training. and employment qualifies himlher to perform the intended 
SRC-04-116-50588 
Page 3 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The first issue in the present matter is whether the petitioner has established that the beneficiary's prior 
employment abroad was in a position that involved specialized knowledge, such that the bcneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. See 8 C.F.R. $ 2 14.2(1)(3)(iv). 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. 8 U.S.C. 5 1 184(c)(2)(B), provides the following: 
For purposes of section lOl(a)(15)(L), an alicn is considered to be serving in a capacity 
involving specialized kno\vledge with respcct to a company if the alien has special 
knowledge of the conlpany product and its application in international markets or has an 
advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company. , I 
Furthennore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $2 14.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines specialized knowlcdge as: 
[Slpecial 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 levcl of knowledge or expertise in the organization's 
processcs or procedures. 
In an affidavit from thc petitioner's chairman submitted with the initial petition on March 17, 2004, the 
petitioner described the beneficiary's job duties with the foreign entity as follows: 
[The beneficiary] has worked with [the foreign entity] in Turkmenistan since 1996 when he 
was hired as a Lead Expert. Hc was promoted to lIepuQ General Manager in 1999. and then 
the General Manager in 2001. As general manager, he has been responsible for all hnctions 
of the company. Specifically, he has bcen responsible for conducting negotiations and 
solving economic arid political problems with the Turkmenistan government. He has been 
responsible for expansion planning, rcinvcstment planning, marketing, public relations, and 
quality control on expansion of coverage for tllc company, as an executive. He formulates 
and develops business strategies and solutions for improving company performance. He 
monitors and analyzes business performance. He has developed and overseen the 
implementation of GSM network in Turkmenistan. He negotiates and facilitates arrangements 
for international roaming agreements. In addition, he is responsible for personnel decisions, 
including hiring and firing, and oversight of operations for approxirnatcly 6 regional offices 
and 10 local offices in Turkmenistan. He reports each day to the undersigncd the results of 
every-day activities. 
* * * 
rhroi~gh his experience with the company, [the beneficiary] has specialized knowledge of the 
company products, services and management and its application in international markets. He 
SRC-04-116-50588 
Page 4 
is not simply a skilled worker, in that he has held an executive position for the company since 
1999 to the present. He possesses skills, knowledge and understanding of the company's 
business and how it operates successfully on an international scale that is invaluable to our 
expansion goals in the U.S. 
He has been utilized as a key cmployee in Turkmenistan and has been given specific 
assignments, which have enhanced our productivity. competitiveness, image, financial 
position, and has secured our leadership in a truly global market for technology. Our 
products, services, and business plan is [sic] knowledge that is proprietary and can only be 
obtained through extensive experience with our opcrations, 
On March 30, 2004, the director requested additional evidcnce. In part, the director instructed the petitioner 
as follows: 
You must provide evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy, or 
distinguished by some unusual quality and not generally known by practitioners in the field. 
The evidcnce must also establish that the beneficiary's knowledge of thc processes and 
procedures of your company is apart from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by 
others. 
In a response dated April 2, 2004, counsel for the petitioner submitted a letter that further discusses the 
beneficiary's prior experience with the fvrcign entity as follows: 
[Tlhe beneficiary has specialized knowledge of the petitioner's product, namely cellular and 
paging . He has been responsible for the 
development and ~mplementation of our company's network in Turkmenistan, a country 
which until recently had no cellular GSM technology. He has also been responsible for - - 
facilitating arrangements for international roanling agreements. Intimate knowledge of the 
technology is necessary for successful completion of this assignment. 
* * * 
The beneficiary has special knowledge regarding the company's management. He has 
served in management capacities since 1999, more than half the time the company has been 
in existence . . . . The combination of legal and management experience in the company are 
[sic] very unique and is apart from the knowledge possessed by others. 
The beneficiary has. special knowledge as to the application of company procedures, 
techniques and products to international markets . . . . As one of the beneficiary's job 
duties, .he is responsible for negotiating and facilitating the execution of . . . international 
roaming agreements. His ability to speak Turkmeni, Turkish, English and Russian have [sic] 
SRC-04-116-505 88 
Page 5 
also played a key role in his successful negotiation of the international roaming agreement 
vital to the petitioner's ability to provide access to its cellular customers. 
Counsel further asserted that the beneficiary's duties and esperiencc meet that definition of specialized 
knowledge as discussed in an internal Immigration and Naturalization Service memorandum from James A. 
Puleo. See Memorandum from James A. Puleo, Acting Exec. Assoc. Commr., Office of Operations, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 61terpretatio1? of 
Specialized Knowledge, CO 2 14L-P (Mar. 9, 1994). Counsel stated that: 
Considering the amount of experience the beneficiary has with the company, and his network 
of contacts with foreign governments and businesses, his language ability, and his familiarity 
with the company products. technology, management and business model: it would be 
extremely difficult to impart this knowledge to another without significant economic 
inconvenience at least and damage at worst to the US operations and its future goals. 
' 
On April 14, 2004, the director denied the petition. In part, the director dctermined that the petitioner failed 
to establish that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. The director stated that "[the petitioncr has] 
indicated that the position requires an individual who has an in-depth knowledge of [its] products and 
services, however [it has] not established that an understanding of these methods within [its] company is 
indicative of advanced knowlcdge." 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's knowledge differs from that of other gencral 
managers in the con~munications field, in that he has both legal and managerial experience. Counsel 
discusscs the descriptions of managerial positions in the Ilnitcd States Department of Labor Dictionary of 
Occzlpnrio??al TitIes (DOT) and Occzptrtional Outlook Handbook (OOFI), and asserts that the beneficiary's 
duties do not fit within any of them. Counsel claims that this is evidencc that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge. Counsel repeats the discussion of the beneficiary's duties that was provided to the 
director in response to the request for evidence, as quoted above. 
On review, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary possesses "specialized knowledge" as 
defined in section 214(c)(2)(B) of thc Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(c)(2)(B), and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
9 2 14.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
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. tj 2 14.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a detailed description 
of the services to be performed sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. Id. It is also appropriate for the 
AAO to look beyond the stated job duties and consider the importance of the beneficiary's knowledge of the 
business's product or service, management operations, or decision-making process. Miutter of CoNey, 18 I&N 
Dec. 1 17, 120 (Comm. 198 l)(citing Matter of Ruulin, 13 I&N Dec. 6 1 8 (R.C. 1970) and Matter of L~BILII~c, 
13 I&N Dec. 816 (R.C. 1971)).' As stated by the Con~missioner in &fatter of Penner. 18 I&N Dec. 49, 52 
' Although the cited precedents pre-date the current statutory definition of "specialized knowledge," the AAO 
finds them instructive. Other than deleting the former requirement that specialized knowledge had to be 
SRC-04-116-50588 
Page 6 
(Comm. 1982), whenbconsidering whether the beneficiaries possessed specialized knowledge. "the LeBlanc 
and Raulin decisions did not find that the occupations inherently qualified the beneficiaries for the 
classifications sought." Rather, the beneficiaries were considered to have unusual duties, skills, or knowledge 
beyond that of a skilled worker. Id. The Commissioner also provided the following clarification: 
A distinction can be made between a person whose skills and knowledge enable him or her to 
produce a product through physical or'skilled labor and the person who is employed primarily 
for his ability to carry out a key process or function which is important or essential to the 
business' operation. 
Id. at 53. 
It should be noted that the statutory definition of specialired knowledge requires the, AAO to make 
comparisons in order to .determine what constitutes specialized knowledge. '[he term "specialized 
knowledge" is not an absolute concept and cannot be clearly defined. As observed in 1756. Inc. 11. Attorney 
General, "[slimply put, spec~alized knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a plain meaning." 745 
F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). The Congressional record specifically states that the L-l category was intended 
for "key personnel." See generally, H.R. Rep. No. 91-851, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750. The term "key 
personnel" denotes a position within the petitioning company that is "of crucial importance." Webstedr II Nerv 
College Dictionslry 605 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 2001). In general, all employees can reasonably be 
considered "important" to a petitioner's enterprise. If an employee did not contribute to the overall cconomic 
success of an enterprise, there would be no rational economic reason to employ that person. An employec of 
"crucial importance" or "key personnel" must rise above the level of the petitioner's average employee. 
~ccbrdin~l~. based on the definition of "specialized knowledge" and the congressional record related to that 
term, the AAO must make comparisons not only behveen the claimed specialized knowledge employee and 
the general labor market, but also between that employee and the remainder of the petitioner's workforce. 
Moreover, in Mutter of Penner, the Commissioner discussed the legislative intent behind the creation of the 
specialized knowledge category. 18 I&N Dec. 49 (Comm. 1982). The decision noted that the 1970 House 
Report, H.R. No. 91 -85 1, stated that the number of adn~issions under the L-1 classification "will not be large" 
and that "[tlhe class of persons eligible for such nonimmigrant visas is narrowly drawn and will be carefully 
\ 
regulated by the I~nmigration and Naturalization Service " Id. at 5 1. 1 he decision further noted that the House 
Report was silent on the subject of specialized knowledge, but that during the course of the sub-committee 
hearings on the bill, the Chairman specifically questioned witnesses on the level of skill necessary to qualify 
under the proposed "L" category. In response to the Chairman's questions, varlous witnesses responded that 
"proprietary," the 1990 Act did not significantly alter the definition of "specialized knowledge" from the prior 
INS regulation or precedent decision interpreting thc term. The Com~nittee Report simply states that thc 
Committee was recommending a statutory detinition because of -'[v]arying [is., not specifically incorrect] 
interpretations by INS," 1I.R. Rep. No. 101-723(1). at 69, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6749. Beyond that. the 
Committee Report simply restates the tautology that became section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Id. The AAO 
concludes, therefore, that the cited cases. as well as Mutier ofPenner, remain useful guidance concerning the 
intended scope of the "specialized knowledge" L-I B classification. 
SRC-04-116-50588 
Page 7 
they understood the legislation would allow "high-level people," "experts," individuals with "unique" skills, 
and that it would not include "lowcr categories" of workers or "skilled craft workers." Matter ofPenner, id. at 
50 (&ting H.R. Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. Comm., Immigration Act of 1970: Hearings on H.R. 445, 91st 
Cong. 210.218.223.240,248 (November 12. 1969)). 
Reviewing the Congressional record, the Commissioner concluded in Matter of Penner that an expansive 
reading of the specialized knowledge provision, such that it would include skilled workers and technicians, is 
not warranted. The Com~l~issioner emphasized that that the specialized knowledge worker classification was 
not intended for "all employees with any level of specialized knowledge." Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 
53. Or, as noted in 1Matter of Colley, "[mlost employees today are spccialists and have been trained and given 
specialized knowledge. However, in view of the House Report, it can not be concluded that all employees 
with specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are eligible for classification as 
intracompany transferees." 1 8 I&N Dec. 1 1 7, I 19 (Comm. 1 98 1). According to Mutter of Pemzer, "[sluch a 
conclusion would permit extremely large numbers of persons to qualify for the 'L-1' visa" rather than the 
"key personnel" that Congress specifically intended. 18 I&N Dec. at 53; see also, 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 
15 (concluding that Congress did not intend for the specialized knowledge capacity to extend to all employees 
with specialized knowledge, but rather to "key personnel" and "executives.") 
In the instant matter, the petitioner explained that its "products, services, and business plan is [sic] knowledge 
that is proprietary and can only be obtaincd through extensive experience with our operations." However, the 
petitioner has failed to adeqiately describe its roducts such to distinguish them from those offered by other 
teleco~nmunications companies. is utilized and provided by nun~erous wireless 
communications companies worldwide, and thus more detail is needed to establish that the petitioner's 
technology is specific to its own family of companies. The petitioner asserts that "[ilntimate knowledge of 
the technology is necessary for successful completion of this assignment." Yet, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary possesses or requires technical knowledge that is not commonly found by 
other individuals working within the telecommunications field. such that his technical knowledge can bc 
considered specialized h~owledge. Going on record witliout supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici. 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm. 1998)(citing Mutter of Trecisure Crafi of Ccdifornin, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comni. 
1972)). 
The petitioner states that the beneficiary's foreign duties have led to "special knowledge regarding the 
company's management." The evidence of record sho\vs that the beneficiary has functioned as a general 
manager for the foreign entity for over two years. Yet, the petitioner has not described the foreign entity's 
management methods, procedures, or structure such to differentiate them from those used by other 
companies. The mere fact that the beneficiary ~erved as a manager does not distinguish his knowledge of the 
petitioner's management from the managerial experience held by other managers in the telecommunications 
field. More detailed is required in order for Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to determine if 
knowledge of the foreign entity's management constitutes specialized knowledge. Again, going on record 
hithout supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Soffci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
SRC-04-116-50588 
Page 8 
The petitioner stated that the beneficiary's "ability to speak Turluneni. Turkish, English and R~~ssian have [sic] 
also, played a key role in his successful negotiation of the international roaming agreement vital to the 
petitioner's ability to provide access to its ccllular customers." While the beneficiary's language skills are 
valuable to the foreign entity and petitioner, they do not constitute specialized knowledge. Such skills are 
available to anyone wishing to study the named languages. Thus, mastery of languages cannot be deemed 
specialized knowledge of the petitioher's or foreign entity's particular products or processes. See 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
Counsel asserts that the beneficiary's knowledge differs from that of other general managers in the 
communications field, in that he has both legal and managerial experience. However, while the beneficiary 
may 'possess a unique combination of skills that is well suited to his duties, such skills, without further 
explanation, do not constitute specialized knowledge. The petitioner must clearly show that the beneficiary 
possesses knowledge that pertains only to the petitioner's family of companies. See 8 C.F.R. 
5 21 4.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
Counsel discusses the descriptions of managerial positions in the United States Department of ~abbr 
Dictionay of Occupurional Titles (DOT) and Occtipafio17al Outlook Handbook (0011). and asserts that the 
beneficiary's duties do ndt fit within any of them. Counsel claims that this is evidence that the beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. While the DOT and OOH are generally instructive regarding the 
descriptions of various occupations, the fact that a position doe5 not fit neatly within a single definition 
contained in the guides does not establish that the position involves specialized knowledge. As discussed 
above, the fact that the beneficiary's duties abroad require an unusual combination of skills does not render his 
expericnce in the position specialized knowledge. 
In the instant matter, the petitioner has not submitted a sufficiently detailed description of the beneficiary's 
foreign duties to show that they involve specialized knowledge as defined in 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
While the record reflects that the beneficiary is an experienced manager, evidence does not show that his 
responsibilities require a greater levcl of knowledge and ability than that possessed by other managers in the 
telecommunicatio~~s field. The legislative history for the term "specialized knowledgc" provides ample 
support for a restrictive interpretation of the tcrm. In the present ~natter, the petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the benefic~ary should be considered a member of the "narrowly drawn" class of individuals possessing 
specialized knowledge. ,See 1756, Inc. v. Attortzey General, wprcr at 16. Based on the evidence presented, it 
is concluded that the beneficiary was not employed abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity. For this 
reason, thc appeal will be dismissed. 
The second issue in the prcsent matter is whether the petitioner has established that the beneficiary's position 
in the United States will involve specialized knowledge as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 14.2(1)(3)(ii). 
In an affidavit submitted with the initial petition, the petitioner's chairman described the ,beneficiary's 
prospective duties as follows: 
SRC-04-116-50588 , 
. . 
Page 9 . 
While in the US, [the beneficiary] will be responsible for planning, directing and coordinating 
all operations and functions. He will formulate company policies and strategies for 
implementation on an international scale. IIe will manage daily operations through 
subordinate management personnel. He will be responsible for personnel decisions, 
including hiring and firing, and for financial development, records, and growth. He will be 
responsible for expansion planning, rcinvestment planning, marketing, public relations, and 
quality control on expansion of cellular coverage for the company. He will formulate and 
develop business strategies and solutions for improving cornpar~y performance and opening 
new offices. He will monitor and analyze business performance and develop the 
implementation of GSM network. He will facilitate arrangements of internalional roaming 
agreements and continue to report each day to the Chairman results of every-day activities. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner further dcscribed the beneficiary's prospective 
duties in the United States as follows: 
Considering the amount of experience the beneficiary has with the company, and his network 
, 
of contacts with foreign governments and businesses, his language ability. and his familiarity 
with the company products, technology, management and business model, it would bc 
extremely difficult to impart this knowledge to another without significant economic 
inconvenience at least and damage at worst to the US operations and its future goals. 
* * * 
The beneficiary has skills that are required for successful accomplishment of the goals set by 
the Directors of the US operations of [the foreign entity]. namely continued international 
development and growing the operations and functions of the US office. The beneficiary's 
intimate knowledge of the petitioner's products, technology, management and procedures, 
and in particular how those are applied and exploited in international markets, is specialized 
and required. The knowledge he has cannot easily be imparted to another, and can only be 
gained through experience within the company. Because of his unique combination of 
management and legal expericnce, as well as his language ability, he has the skills the 
company needs to succeed. 
In denying the petition. the director concluded that the petitioner failed to show that the prospective position 
in the United States requires an individual with specialized knowledge. The director stated that the 
beneficiary's prospective duties "do not appear to be significantly different from those of any other manager 
' 
in the communications industry. Therefore, it has not been established that the duties warrant the expertise of 
someone possessing truly specialized knowledge." 
On appeal, counsel's brief is framed as a simultaneous response to both grounds for denial. Thus, counsel's 
arguments discussed above also apply to whether the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a 
capacity involving specialized knowledge. Counsel repeats the discussion of the beneficiary's prospective 
duties that was provided to the director in response to the request for evidence, as quoted above. 
SRC-04-116-50588 
Page 10 
As with the beneficiary's duties abroad, the petitioner has not indicated that the beneficiary will utilize 
technical knowledge in the United States that i~ specific to the petitioner's family of companies. Nor has the 
petitioner shown that the position in the United States requires knowledge of management processes or 
procedures that are specific to the petitioner or the foreign entlty. As discussed above, the petitioner has 
failed to adequately describe the management structure'used by it and the foreign entity, such to establish that 
knowledge of the companies' management constitutes specialized knowledge. The beneficiary's prospective 
duties involve general managerial tasks. and do not reflect a need for skills or knowledge that are unique to 
the petitioner or foreign entity. Thus. the evidence of record does not support that the petitioner requires an 
employee with greater knowledge than that held by other managers in the beneficiary's field. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has failed to show that the prospective position in the United States requires an individual with 
specialized luiowledge. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). For this additional reason, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
In visa proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. €j 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
director's decision will be affirmed and the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.