dismissed L-1B Case: Textiles

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N .W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identiMna data delewa to 
p~vellt clc:~iy unwamaah 
invasion of oersonal ~d~a~u 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: WAC-04- RNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEp 0 5 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC-04- 168-52206 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center (CSC), denied the petition for a nonirnmigrant visa. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as a general manager under 
the L-1B nonimmigrant, intracompany transferee program for specialized knowledge pursuant to section 
10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 
 1 101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner 
manufactures textiles, and claims to be a subsidiary of 
 , in Ansung, South Korea. The 
petitioner was formed under the laws of the State of California 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary 
possessed specialized knowledge and that he was employed abroad and would be employed in the United 
States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. 
 On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge and will be employed in specialized knowledge position here in United 
States. In support of this assertion, the petitioner submits a brief. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101 (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 within 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 subsidiary or affiliate 
thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 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 (l)(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 description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himiher to perform the intended 
WAC-04-1 68-52206 
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 issues to be discussed in the present matter are related but distinct, whether or not the beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge and 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. 9 
214.2(1)(3)(ii), and whether beneficiary was employed abroad in a capacity that utilized such specialized 
knowledge as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 2 14.2(1)(3)(iv). 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the following: 
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 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. 9 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge 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 level of knowledge or expertise in the organization's 
processes or procedures. 
In a letter written by the beneficiary and filed with the initial petition, the beneficiary's specialized knowledge 
job duties abroad were described as follows: 
[The beneficiary] has been continuously employed by our [plarent [clompany since 
November of 1998 in the [klnitting [dlepartment. [The beneficiary] was responsible for 
quality control management of textiles manufactured at the [plarent [c]ompanyls factory. 
The beneficiary's job duties in the U.S. were described as follows: 
[Tlhis position of [glenera] [mlanager of U.S. Company also requires a person with 
"specialized knowledge" who has advanced level of expertise in processes and procedures as 
well as products of both the [plarent and U.S. companies. 
On July 7, 2004, the director sent the petitioner a request for additional evidence (RFE). Specifically the 
director requested an articulation of the specialized knowledge duties abroad and in the United States, details 
on the petitioner's specific process and product such that the beneficiary's knowledge could be considered 
advanced, information on the beneficiary's distinguishable training or experience, and a detailed description 
of the beneficiary's duties in the United States. The director also requested an organizational chart with a list 
of all employees and their duties and quarterly wage reports (Forms DE-6). 
WAC-04-1 68-52206 
Page 4 
In response, counsel submitted a letter requesting that the petitioner be given an opportunity to further 
develop its operations and submitted the following documents: A CSC form requesting a correction of the 
listed status on an 1-797 form, 1-797 approval notices for the parent company's owner, alleged pictures of the 
U.S operation and products, income tax returns and Forms DE-6. 
On November 16, 2004, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the beneficiary did not 
possess specialized knowledge and that the position did not require a person with specialized knowledge. 
The petitioner subsequently appealed. 
 On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge and the position in the United States requires such specialized knowledge. 
In examining the specialized knowledge capacity 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. fj 214,2(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 then 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. A specific occupation will not 
inherently qualify a beneficiary as possessing specialized knowledge. Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. 117, 120 
(Comm. 198l)(citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. 618 (R.C. 1970) and Matter of LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 
816 (R.C. 1971)).' 
In making a determination as to whether or not knowledge possessed by a beneficiary is special or advanced 
the AAO relies on the statute and regulations, prior precedent decisions, and legislative history. This yields a 
multiple pronged analysis to determine whether the petition has employed and will employ the beneficiary in 
a specialized knowledge capacity. In examining whether an alien has "special knowledge" of the petitioner's 
product and its application in international markets or an "advanced level" of knowledge of its processes and 
procedures, the AAO will consider whether the beneficiary: 1) is part of the petitioner's "key personnel" (See 
generally, H.R. Rep. No. 91-851, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750); 2) is more than a specialist or a skilled employee 
(Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 50); 3) has knowledge that qualifies as "special" under the plain meaning 
of the term; 4) performs a key process or function for the petitioner (See Matter of Penner, id.); and 5) 
possesses certain characteristics that have been deemed to be illustrative of specialized knowledge (see 
Memo. from James A. Puleo, Acting Exec. Assoc. Commr., Office of Operations, Immigration and 
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 
"proprietary," the 1990 Act did not significantly alter the definition of "specialized knowledge" from the prior 
INS regulation or precedent decisions interpreting the term. The Committee Report simply states that the 
Committee was recommending a statutory definition because of "[v]arying [i.e., not specifically incorrect] 
interpretations by INS," H.R. Rep. No. 101-723(I), 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 Matter of Penner, remain useful guidance concerning the 
intended scope of the "specialized knowledge" L-1B classification. 
WAC-04-168-52206 
Page 5 
Naturalization Serv., to All Dist. Dir. et al., Immigration and Naturalization Serv., Interpretation of Special 
Knowledge, 1-2 (Mar. 9, 1994) (copy on file with Am. Immig. Law. Assn.). 
In this case the petitioner failed to respond adequately and fully to the director's RFE. 
 The director 
specifically requested a detailed explanation of what qualified the beneficiary's knowledge as specialized, 
what training and experience led to the beneficiary's acquisition of such knowledge, and why the position in 
the United States required this specialized knowledge. The petitioner failed to provide any explanation in its 
response to these requests of the director. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line 
of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(14). Further, the non-existence or 
other unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
On appeal counsel for petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is a key employee, that the beneficiary's 
experience abroad provided the experience which constitutes the beneficiary's specialized knowledge, and 
that the beneficiary possesses various characteristics of a specialized knowledge employee. Counsel's 
arguments are not persuasive. First, counsel's arguments are not supported by the evidence presented. 
Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter ofLaureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Although counsel has submitted letters from the interested parties, these 
letters are not persuasive because they are not sufficiently objective or independent to demonstrate that the 
knowledge possessed by the beneficiary is actually specialized. Vague assertions that an employee knows 
how to work various machinery or understands his company's product are not sufficiently probative to 
illustrate why the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon or noteworthy among the petitioner's employees and 
within this particular industry. 
The failure to provide a detailed description of the beneficiary's position and duties leaves the record without 
any evidence that the position requires specialized knowledge, or that the beneficiary is actually performing 
these specialized knowledge duties. Based on the petitioner's ambiguous description of the beneficiary's 
duties, and the failure to distinguish those duties among other employees with the foreign parent and within 
this particular industry, the AAO cannot determine that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and 
will be employed in such a capacity. Without a detailed description of the beneficiary's skill relative to the 
petitioners' other employees or to the market as a whole, the AAO can not determine whether the beneficiary 
possesses "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." See section 214(c)(2)(B) of the 
Act. In addition to a lack of probative evidence supporting counsel's assertions, the record as it is currently 
constituted does not establish that the knowledge possessed by the beneficiary meets the plain meaning of 
special, that the beneficiary is performing a key process or function, or that the beneficiary is more than 
merely a skilled employee. 
From a practical point of view, the mere fact that a petitioner alleges that an alien's knowledge is somehow 
different does not, in and of itself, establish that the alien possesses specialized knowledge. The petitioner 
bears the burden of establishing through the submission of probative evidence that the alien's knowledge is 
WAC-04-1 68-52206 
Page 6 
uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished by some unusual quality and not generally known by practitioners in 
the alien's field of endeavor. 
All companies are different, and it can generally be expected that no two companies will employ the same 
procedures. Standing alone, however, an alien's knowledge of minor variations in style or manner of 
operations cannot be considered specialized. Legacy INS memo, HQSCOPS, 7016.1, "Interpretation of 
Specialized Knowledge" (December 20,2002). 
The legislative history for the term "specialized knowledge" provides ample support for a restrictive 
interpretation of the term. In the present matter, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
should be considered a member of the "narrowly drawn" class of individuals possessing specialized 
knowledge. See 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, supra at 16. Based on the evidence presented, it is concluded 
that the beneficiary was not employed abroad, and will not be employed in the future, in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. Nor has it been established that the knowledge possessed by the beneficiary of 
petitioner's the business procedures is advanced. 
The petitioner failed to respond to the director's RFE, and for this reason the appeal will be denied. 
Moreover, the record as it is currently constituted does not demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses 
"specialized knowledge" as defined in section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1184(c)(2)(B), and the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D), nor has counsel demonstrated that the beneficiary has been or 
would be employed in a capacity utilizing any such specialized knowledge as required by 8 C.F.R. 4 
2 14.2(1)(3)(ii) and (iv). 
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. 4 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
director's decision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is denied.