dismissed L-1B Case: Travel Services

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
E 
File: WAC 05 042 54343 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 1 8 m 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmi grant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON 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. 
Robert P. wiernannpief 
b 
dministrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 043 54343 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed ths nonimrnigrant petition seelung to employ the beneficiary as an L-1B nonimrnigrant 
intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a California corporation, is a provider of 
international travel agency services. The petitioner claims to be an affiliate of the beneficiary's previous foreign 
employer, 1- Ltd., located in Beijing, China. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its Director of e-Business Development for a three-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has 
specialized knowledge or that she will be employed in a capacity involving specialized knowledge. 
The petitioner subsequently 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 director erred in 
determining that the beneficiary does not qualify for the benefit sought. Counsel provides additional explanation 
regarding the beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge and the need for the beneficiary's services in the 
United States. Counsel submits a brief and additional evidence in support of the appeal. 
To establish L-1 eligbility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. tj 1 101(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, withn three years preceding the 
beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year by a 
qualifying organization and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his or her 
services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or 
involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) further 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 himher to perform the intended 
WAC 05 043 54343 
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. 
This matter presents two related but distinct issues: (I) whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge; 
and (2) whether the proposed employment is in a capacity that requires specialized knowledge. 
Section 2 14(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 184(c)(2)(B), provides: 
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. 5 2 14.2(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 and procedures. 
The nonirnrnigrant petition was filed on December 2, 2004. In a November 19, 2004 letter, the general 
noted that the U.S. market has a "mature market for e-business and on-line bookmgs," and stated that its 
subsidiary, intends to work with the U.S. company to "develop the on-line market in the 
U.S. for trave o 
 ma an Asia." The foreign entity further described this project and the beneficiary's 
proposed role as Director of e-Business Development as follows: 
To develop and actually operate the system here will enable CTS Hong Kong to build its 
sales volume in the U.S. as well as gain experience that will eventually help it upgrade its 
operations in Hong Kong and china. To start the project, the Board wishes to transfer [the 
beneficiary] to [the petitioner] to serve as Director of e-Business Development and to 
coordinate that function with CTS Hong Kong and CTI (Beijing). 
In the new position with [the petitioner], [the beneficiary] will be responsible for researching and 
proposing solutions for the integration of U.S. operations with operations in Hong Kong and 
China using a wide area network. She will hire and supervise information technology vendors to 
develop the in-house reservation system for [the petitioner], as well and [sic] creating a new 
department withn [the petitioning company] to implement and refine the back office reservation 
system. She will closely monitor the project's budget as well as hardware and software 
purchasing. She will also oversee the restructure of [the petitioner's] website. . ., monitoring 
expenses and return from the website and managing the on-line marketing promotion in the U.S. 
She will have oversight over the entire project and report to both the President of [the petitioner] 
WAC 05 043 54343 
Page 4 
and the parent company with suggestions and recommendations. She will also continue to 
coordinate and communicate between the three offices in the U.S., Hong Kong, and Beijing. 
The letter also included an overview of the beneficiary's employment history and qualifications, including 
descriptions of the beneficiary's last three assignments with the petitioner's group overseas: 
In 2000, [the beneficiary] moved to the position of Director and Deputy General Manager of 
Ltd, a new subsidiary which started up the first CTS website. . . . This 
,000 pages of travel information on China and enabled customers to 
make instant transactions. She was involved in strategic planning of the e-Business of CTS Hong 
Kong, including sales and marketing, as well as managing daily operations. 
In 2002, she was assigned to CTI (Beijing) where as Executive Director and Executive Deputy 
General Manager she was responsible for conducting feasibility studies and drafting the business 
plan to set up this new company as well. She was instrumental to CTS HK in geMng the 
necessary approvals for the new venture from the Chinese government. She also set the budget 
and salaries, recruited travel managers and staff, and achieved a profit in the company's first 
year. . . . 
In May 2004 [the beneficiary] retwned to 
 td. in Hong Kong, and 
resumed the position of Director & Deputy 
 egan feasibility studies 
for the present on-line business initiative, and a report will be completed by the end of the year 
With her years of travel industry experience, excellent grounding in e-Business and in-depth 
knowledge of CTS, we are confident that [the beneficiary] is the right person to initiate thls new 
project in ow U.S. operations. She is fluent in English. . . . 
The petitioner provided a copy of the beneficiary's resume, which includes the following description of the 
beneficiary's responsibilities and achievements related to the group's e-Business project to be undertaken in the 
United States: 
Assist the GM to take charge of the travel business side of the project, doing market 
research, feasibility studies and human resource recruitment, etc. in the first stage. 
Involved in the feasibility study of the online project. Joined business discussions with 
Travel Sky, a publicly listed and the largest online company in China. Help with partnership 
negotiations and drafting documentations toward future cooperation. 
At the request of the GM of the project, is currently conducting some research in the US 
marketing including outsourcing of some technical solutions. A report is requested to be 
submitted to the GM by the end of the year. 
The director issued a request for additional evidence on December 7,2004, and instructed the petitioner to submit 
additional evidence to establish that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. Specifically, the director 
WAC 05 043 54343 
Page 5 
requested that the petitioner provide additional evidence regarding any special or advanced duties assigned to the 
beneficiary and explain how the duties she performed abroad and will perform in the United States are different 
from those of other workers employed by the petitioner or by other U.S. employers in similar types of positions. 
The director also requested organizational charts for the U.S. and foreign entities and information regarding the 
number of employees worlung for each company at the location where the beneficiary would be worlung. 
In a response dated December 14, 2004, the petitioner noted that the beneficiary has held managerial positions 
withn the CTS group for over ten years and worked in the Chinese travel industry for over 25 years. The 
petitioner further explained the beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge as follows: 
Her new position is an outgrowth of the expertise she has acquired, as she will essentially be 
building a "web storefront" for customers to buy travel packages in Hong Kong, China, and 
Southeast Asia. 
E-business is not just about technology. Creating an IT structure that works for an actual 
business withn a specific industry is also a complex job. E-business solutions work best with a 
well-thought out business model that the technology is designed to serve. While at = 
~td., [the beneficiary] has been instrumental in setting up and managing the business 
side of CTS Hong Kong's portal. . . . She has extremely valuable knowledge of how a company 
network and back office system can be made to work smoothly and efficiently with an e- 
business portal. She has also had substantial experience in outsourcing the technical side of on- 
line solutions. As Director of e-Business Development at [the petitioner], [the beneficiary] will 
be in the right location to tap the best local vendors and developers for [the U.S. company]. 
In addition, [the beneficiary's] knowledge of the international . . . organization, its processes and 
procedures, is essential to performing her new job duties. With CTII's worldwide networks and 
operating structure, it would be very difficult for anyone outside the organization to understand 
its needs in depth and be able to communicate effectively with the affiliated companies in Hong 
Kong and China, as well as the U.S. 
The petitioner also provided the requested organizational charts for the U.S. company, the beneficiary's current 
foreign employer in Hong Kong, and the beneficiary's previous foreign employer in China. The petitioner noted 
on the U.S. company's organizational chart that the company has already hired a part-time webmaster and a 
system administrator and will later hire "other developers" on an in-house or contract basis. 
The director denied the petition on December 22,2004, concluding that the petitioner had not established that the 
beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that the proposed employment is in a capacity that requires 
specialized knowledge. The director observed that the beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge of the 
petitioner's organization, processes and procedures had not been properly detailed or shown to be substantially 
different from, or advanced in relation to, that of any director or manager in similar organizations. 
The director further determined that the proffered position "appears to require knowledge, skills, and abilities 
available to . . . other professionals not affiliated with the petitioner, its affiliates or subsidiaries," including 
WAC 05 043 54343 
Page 6 
employees of consulting firms, IT professionals and other organizations "around the globe." The director noted 
that while the petitioner emphasized the beneficiary's knowledge of "how a computer network and back office 
system can be made to work smoothly and efficiently with an e-business portal," the petitioner stated that it would 
use "local vendors and developers" to develop and implement its e-Business project, while the beneficiary would 
coordinate the project, a role which would not require the same "command of specialized knowledge." 
In an appeal filed on January 21, 2005, counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that as a member of the Board of 
Directors of the foreign entity, the beneficiary "has an advanced level of knowledge of the CTS organization and 
its business." Counsel asserts that the beneficiary is a critical employee based on her "notable success performing 
key management roles within the organization," and states that the beneficiary's experience "has given her 
expertise and on-the-ground knowledge of the procedures and operating issues in those organizations." Counsel 
asserts that the beneficiary was chosen for the offered position "because of her advanced knowledge and 
experience with the CTS organization's products, services, techniques, research, strategy and management." 
Counsel further asserts that the proffered position in the United States requires the beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge, noting that the parent company "intends to re-engineer [the petitioner] with a new business model and 
empowered by e-commerce." Counsel emphasizes that the parent company is only willing to entrust the project 
to a member of its management team and chose the beneficiary because of her previous roles, and because she 
already completed the business plan for the new project. Counsel asserts that the beneficiary "has advanced 
knowledge of the complex buylsell structure withn the system of China Travel Se~ce companies that will need 
to be incorporated into the new software. This information is known only to senior management and would also 
be difficult to teach to someone who did not have long experience with the company." Counsel also emphasizes 
that the beneficiary has 25 years of experience in the "China and Asia tourist industry" which will allow her to 
"assist in creating a web portal that will meet all the needs of Chinese visitors to the U.S., as well as U.S. visitors 
to China." 
Counsel states that although the Immigration Act of 1990 removed the requirement that a petitioner establish that 
a beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge is proprietary, the petitioner nevertheless considers its research and 
strategic planning confidential and "has an interest in keeping the details within the organization." Finally, 
counsel asserts that the beneficiary possesses the characteristics of an employee with specialized knowledge as 
outlined in an October 27, 1988 legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service memorandum, in that she (1) 
possesses knowledge that is valuable to the employer's competitiveness in the marketplace; (2) is uniquely 
qualified to contribute to the U.S. employer's knowledge of foreign operating conditions; (3) has been utilized as 
a key employee abroad and been given significant assignments that have enhanced the employer's productivity, 
competitiveness, image, or financial position; and (4) they possess knowledge that can be gained only through 
extensive prior experience with that employer. See Memorandum from Richard E. Norton, Associate 
Commissioner for Examinations, Immigration and Naturalization Services, Interpretation of Specialized 
Knowledge Under the L Classzfication, CO 2 14.2L-P (October 27, 1986)("Norton memorandum"). 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner submits a January 14, 2005 letter from the general manager of the 
petitioner's ultimate parent company, who further describes the beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge: 
WAC 05 043 54343 
Page 7 
[The beneficiary] is one of our most senior managers and the key person in our organization 
charged with carrying out our e-Business initiative. This $300 million (HK) project . . . will 
revolutionize how China Travel Service does business in the U.S. and internationally. 
[The beneficiary] . . . has the greatest knowledge of anyone withn ow organization of the full 
picture of our e-Business issues and strategy, in addition to the know-how to optimize our 
products and procedures to make ths new venture a success. In her ten years with [the foreign 
organization] she has been a critical force in the start-up of Ltd. in 
Hong Kong and our web portal. . . . We feel it is now time to launch a new, fully-enabled web 
portal in the United States that meets American standards for design, visual interest and ease of 
use.. . . 
Before and after 
 (Beijing), [the beneficiary] has served as deputy 
general manager of 
 Ltd., located in Hong Kong. Here she also acted as 
chief operating officer, leading the project team to set up . . . an e-business storefront for the 
Hong Kong market. 
At 
 Ltd., she led both the technical team and the operations team to 
create a website whch was customer oriented and information rich. The new website enabled 
customers to view and buy travel products. . . online in real time by credit card or on an existing 
account. The portal was connected to an in-house database enabling the frequent updating of the 
content of the website. The website also emphasized user-bendly presentation of our company's 
products in a business to business system and business to customer system. . . . [The beneficiary] 
also developed model procedures for the sales team on these two systems, optimizing off-line 
work flow and follow-through after the order is received from the customer. 
Since 2000, [the beneficiary] has been on the Board of Directors of China Travel Service (Hong 
Kong) Ltd. She has been a leading source of research, strategy and planning regarding the 
importance of incorporating the latest e-Business methods and technology in China Travel 
Service's future. . . . From her perspective. . . .she is exceptionally familiar with all of the 
organizational functions involved and the variety of special circumstances withn the China 
Travel Service family of companies. 
The foreign entity goes on to further describe the beneficiary's proposed role as Director of e-Business 
Development for the U.S. entity, noting the group's intention to "re-engineer" the U.S. company with a new 
business model "empowered by e-commerce, with most of the business functions and transactions web-based." 
The foreign entity indicates that the beneficiary has drafted the business plan for the project, and notes that the 
beneficiary possesses the experience "to choose the right technology for the business operational and 
management needs of our company." The foreign entity further describes the U.S. position and the beneficiary's 
qualifications as follows: 
WAC 05 043 54343 
Page 8 
[The beneficiary] has a successful track record of developing the right kind of online products 
for specific markets. Furthermore, she will know how to avoid pitfalls in merging online 
processes with traditional functions while maximizing user hendliness in our U.S. operations. 
In addition, there is a complex buylsell structure within the system of China Travel Service 
companies which will need to be worked out in the new software. No one with ths knowledge 
could be hired from within the U.S. and it cannot be taught effectively to someone who does not 
have a senior position and long experience in our company's international operations. 
Currently, there are two websites associated with China Travel Service USA. . . . .The new portal 
needs to be set up in such a way that the cultural expectations of the Chinese, as well as the U.S., 
market are met. When a quotation is requested from the China side, the US tow operator must 
know how to respond to such a request with some understanding of the requirements of Chinese 
travelers. We are confident that the presentation and processing of our travel products will 
benefit from [the beneficiary's] sure instincts and many years of experience in the Chinese and 
American tourism field. 
Finally, the foreign entity's general manager emphasizes that a direct outcome of the beneficiary's proposed U.S. 
assignment will be the hiring of local database programmers and consultants for the e-Business development 
project. He further notes that the beneficiary "is not an IT manager and is committed to obtaining the services of 
the best people available for the technical side of the project." 
The petitioner also submits a draft e-Business Plan for the U.S. company, dated January 10, 2005, which was 
written by the beneficiary. The business plan, at pages 10 and 11, mentions the U.S. company's need for an 
information technology department to include a qualified project manager who is "professionalized in the tourism 
industry with good management capabilities. . . . familiar with tourist market, tourist products, operational 
processes, and sales & marketing slulls. . . . We need to recruit such a person to sit inside the management team 
and monitor the whole operations of the e-biz development stages." The business plan also referenced the need 
for a professionally trained IT manager who "has the know-how on computer hard ware [sic] and soft ware [sic] 
and self-programming. He will be instrumental in outsourcing technology, in the evaluation of the outsourced 
technology, site inspection during the installation period and help with the final check of the system installed." 
The e-Business plan also indicates at page 16 that "E-commerce IT solution is quite developed in the United 
States. Ready-made solutions for tour operators and travel agents are easily available here. There is no necessity 
to develop any new solution neither by us nor by out-sourcing IT companies. The adoption of ready-made 
solution may lower the cost in large scale as well as speed up the process. Public bidding should be invited to 
suppliers for solutions with better function/cost ratio." The business plan references several potential suppliers 
being considered for the project and notes that "professional appraisal" will be carried out before any contracts 
are entered with suppliers, possibly by professionals sent by the parent company. 
On review, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge or that the 
proffered position in the United States requires an employee with specialized knowledge. In examining the 
specialized knowledge capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's description of the job 
WAC 05 043 54343 
Page 9 
duties. See 8 C.F.R. fj 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. 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. See Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. 117, 120 
(Comm. 198 1) (citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. 6 18 (R.C. 1970) and Matter of LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 
8 16 (R.C. 197 I)).' As stated by the Commissioner in Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. 49, 52 (Comm. 1982), 
when considering 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 shlls 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. 
In addition, the statutory definition requires the AAO to make comparisons in order to determine what 
constitutes specialized knowledge. As observed in 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General , "[slimply put, specialized 
knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a plain meaning." 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). The 
term "specialized knowledge" is relative and cannot be plainly defined. The Congressional record specifically 
states that the L-1 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." Webster's II New College Dictionary 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 economic success of an enterprise, there would be no rational reason to employ that 
person. An employee of "crucial importance" or "key personnel" must rise above the level of the petitioner's 
average employee. Accordingly, based on the definition of "specialized knowledge" and the congressional 
record related to that term, the AAO must make comparisons not only between the claimed specialized 
knowledge employee and the general labor market, but also between that employee and the remainder of the 
petitioner's workforce. 
1 
 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" f?om the prior 
INS interpretation of the term. The 1990 Committee Report does not reject, criticize, or even refer to any 
specific INS regulation or precedent decision interpreting the term. The Committee Report simply states that 
the Committee was recommending a statutory definition because of "[vlarying [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- 1 B classification. 
WAC 05 043 54343 
Page 10 
Here, the beneficiary's proposed job duties do not identify services to be performed by the beneficiary in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. For example, the beneficiary's responsibilities of researching and proposing 
solutions for the integration of the U.S. and foreign operations, hiring and supervising information technology 
vendors, establishing a new department to develop an in-house reservation system, monitoring budgets and 
purchasing activities, monitoring expenses, overseeing on-line marketing promotion, and overseeing the 
restructuring of the U.S. company's web site are all general managerial duties that could reasonably be 
performed by an experienced manager in the international travel industry who had some background in e- 
business aspects of the field. While the project to be undertaken in the United States appears to be part of a 
larger effort to coordinate operations between the Chinese, Hong Kong and U.S. entities, the record indicates 
that the U.S. company will use outside information technology service providers and purchase ready-made 
solutions to achieve its objectives to "re-engineer" the U.S. company's existing web-based operations. 
Furthermore, while the petitioner emphasizes the beneficiary's role in establishing the overall information 
technology strategy for the U.S. company, the business plan developed by the beneficiary specifically states: 
"There is no necessity to develop any new solution neither by us nor by out-sourcing IT companies." If the U.S. 
company is purchasing a ready-made travel industry e-business solution, rather than implementing the same 
type of e-Business environment as the foreign entity, it is not clear how the beneficiary's prior experience is 
required for the U.S. position. 
The record is devoid of any documentary evidence that the beneficiary's proposed position would involve the 
application of special knowledge of the petitioning organization's product, service, research, equipment, 
techniques, management, or other interests as required in the regulations. The petitioner's suggestion that the 
beneficiary will rely on her previous experience managing similar activities for the foreign entity is not 
supported by evidence in the record. While her familiarity and experience with the foreign entity's operations 
and capabilities are undoubtedly valuable to the petitioner, the evidence of record fails to establish that any 
prior experience with the foreign entity would actually be required to perform the general oversight activities 
proposed. 
The AAO acknowledges that it is possible for an individual employed in a managerial role to meet the criteria 
for specialized knowledge capacity set forth at section 214(c)(2)(B). However, the petitioner has not 
established that the particular position offered to the beneficiary requires an individual with knowledge, 
experience or characteristics beyond possession of familiarity with the U.S. and Chinese tourism markets, 
general knowledge of e-business requirements and options in the petitioner's industry, general business and 
management skills, marketing and sales skills, and knowledge of the English and Chinese languages. Counsel 
emphasizes that the beneficiary "is not an IT manager" and must therefore hire outside information 
technology providers and perform research to choose ready-made IT solutions for the company. Again, there 
is no evidence that she would rely on "special" or "advanced" knowledge of the petitioner's products or 
processes in order to perform the proposed duties. The fact that the petitioner's parent company "is only 
willing to entrust this project to a seasoned member" of its management team, or the fact that it prefers to 
keep its "research and strategc planning confidential" is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge or that the offered position requires specialized knowledge. 
In addition, the petitioner must establish how the claimed specialized knowledge relates specifically to the 
petitioning company. Here the petitioner's only attempt to explain how the beneficiary's knowledge is 
WAC 05 043 54343 
Page 11 
specific to the company is its statement that "she has an advanced knowledge of the complex buylsell 
structure within the system of [the petitioner's group of companies] that will need to be incorporated into the 
new software. This information is known only to senior management and would be difficult to teach someone 
who did not have long experience with the company." The petitioner provided no further description of this 
"buy/sell structure" such that its actual complexity could be determined, nor did it explain how the beneficiary 
would ensure that it is incorporated into the software, since the beneficiary herself will not be engaged in 
software development but will rather hire IT professionals to implement software and purchase pre-packaged 
solutions that are available to other companies in the industry. Without additional information, the AAO 
cannot assess the relevance of this claimed "advanced knowledge." 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. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). There is no evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge of the foreign 
entity's e-business systems and software extends beyond that of mere familiarity that could easily be 
transferred to another individual with a similar professional background. 
Such a conclusion is supported by the petitioner's business plan, which indicates the U.S. company's intent to 
locally recruit a project manager and an information technology manager for the company's e-Business 
project. According to the business plan, the project manager would need to be familiar with the tourism 
industry, market and products, "operational processes," and possess good management capabilities and sales 
and marketing skills. The employee would be a member of the management team and "monitor the whole 
operations of the e-biz development stages." The petitioner further indicated its intent to locally hire an IT 
manager who would be responsible for outsourcing technology and evaluating the technology. Based on the 
petitioner's representations, both of these management-level employees would be more intimately involved in 
the implementation and management of the e-Business project than the beneficiary, yet are not required to 
have any experience with the foreign entity's operations, processes or services. The petitioner has not 
demonstrated how the U.S. position requires more than management slulls and general knowledge that is 
common in the U.S. travel industry. 
The AAO does not disagree with the petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary will be employed primarily to 
carry out a key process or function. However, the statute and regulations require the petitioner to demonstrate 
that the beneficiary possesses, and that the proposed employment requires, special knowledge of the 
petitioning organization's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests, 
or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the organization's processes and procedures. The 
beneficiary's knowledge and expertise, while valuable to the petitioner, does not include the type of special or 
advanced knowledge required by the regulations. 
Finally, counsel's reliance on the Norton memorandum is misplaced. It is noted that the memorandum was 
intended solely as a guide for employees and will not supercede the plain language of the statute or the 
regulations. Therefore, by itself, counsel's assertion that the beneficiary's qualifications are analogous to the 
examples outlined in the memorandum is insufficient to establish the beneficiary's qualification for 
classification as an intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge. Specifics are clearly an important 
indication of whether a beneficiary's duties encompass specialized knowledge; otherwise meeting the 
definition would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. See, e.g., Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
WAC 05 043 54343 
Page 12 
F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), am, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). While the beneficiary may possess 
knowledge valuable to the petitioner's productivity, competitiveness, and financial position and has held key 
assignments abroad, these factors, by themselves, do not constitute the possession of specialized knowledge. 
While the beneficiary's contnbution to the economic success of the company may be considered, the regulations 
specifically require that the beneficiary possess an "advanced level of knowledge" of the organization's process 
and procedures, or a "special knowledge" of the petitioner's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, or 
management. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
 As determined above, the beneficiary does not satis@ the 
requirements for possessing specialized knowledge. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary possesses special 
knowledge of the petitioner's products or services, or an advanced level of knowledge of the company's 
processes or procedures, nor has it established that the position of Director of e-Business Development within 
its organization requires specialized knowledge. The AAO concurs with the petitioner's assertions that the 
beneficiary is highly qualified for the position offered, and recognizes that the beneficiary, as a senior 
management employee, would carry out key functions within the petitioner's organization. The AAO also 
recognizes the petitioner's preference to secure the services of an employee who has worked for its parent 
company; however, these elements are insufficient to establish eligibility for classification as a specialized 
knowledge worker. 
The plain meaning of the term "specialized knowledge" is knowledge or expertise beyond the ordinary in a 
particular field, process, or function. The petitioner has not furnished evidence sufficient to demonstrate that 
the beneficiary's duties involve knowledge or expertise beyond what is commonly held by management-level 
employees in her field. There is nothing in the record to suggest that any other experienced employee within 
the parent company's organization, or any employee with a record of success in a similar role within the 
petitioner's industry, could not adequately perform the proposed duties. 
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, 745 F. Supp. at 16. Based on the foregoing, the record does 
not establish that the beneficiary would be employed by the U.S. entity in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
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. 5 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 dismissed.