dismissed L-1B Case: Women'S Apparel Retail

ldentifving data deletea w 
pmm t clearly unwam- 
invasion of personal ~rivaol 
pUBLZC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 04 050 52354 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 0 6 2006 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
obert P. Wieman hief 
1 Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 050 52354 
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 this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its marketing manager as 
an L-1B nonimmigrant intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to 9 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a California 
corporation that is engaged in the retail merchandising of women's apparel. The petitioner claims to be a 
subsidiary of located in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The beneficiary was initially 
granted one-year in L-1B status in order to work in a new office and the petitioner now seeks to extend her 
stay for a three-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge or that she would be employed in a position that involves 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. Counsel asserts that the director's decision was based on a lack 
of understanding of the "unique" and proprietary nature of the petitioner's products and failed to consider the 
evidence submitted to establish the beneficiary's qualifications and her standing as a "key employee" of the 
foreign entity. Counsel submits a brief in support of the appeal. 
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. 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 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. 9 214.2(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 
WAC 04 050 52354 
Page 3 
education, training, and employment qualifies hider to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(14)(ii) also provides that a visa petition, which involved the opening of a 
new office, may be extended by filing a new Form 1-129, accompanied by the following: 
(A) 
 Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying organizations 
as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; 
(B) 
 Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph (I)(l)(ii)(H) of this section for the previous year; 
(C) 
 A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and the 
duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition; 
(D) 
 A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the number of 
employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence of wages paid to 
employees when the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and 
(E) 
 Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
This matter presents two related, but distinct issues: (1) whether the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge; and (2) whether the proposed employment is in a capacity that requires specialized knowledge. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 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 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. 4 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 petition was filed on December 12, 2003. In an appended letter dated December 3, 2003, the petitioner 
indicated that the U.S. company is engaged in importing and selling women's apparel and provided evidence 
WAC 04 050 52354 
Page 4 
that it operates one retail store. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary is responsible for marketing and 
promotion of the U.S. company, including the following duties: 
Establishing the promotional and marketing goals for the Company expansion plans; 
Providing feedback to upper management here and in Brazil and recommending 
negotiation of contracts with major suppliers; 
Establishing sales goals, assisting salespeople in promoting sales; 
Reviewing market analyses and trends to determine customer needs, and volume 
potential; 
Overseeing and planning corporate strategies as well as to recommend and approve 
budget, and expenditures; 
Responsible for the distribution, marketing, and promotion of the Company product line; 
Developing marketing strategies and promotions for the fashion retail chain. 
The success of the United States Company is directly attributed to the creative vision, talent 
and skillful management and marketing promotion of [the beneficiary]. She has be [sic] an 
integral part in the development, establishment and expansion of [the petitioner's] business 
operation and has demonstrate [sic] her expertise to promote and integrate the company's 
reach into new lines of business. . . . [The beneficiary's] continued role as Marketing 
Manager of the United States Company is crucial. [The beneficiad is in the process of 
overseeing the expansion of [the petitioner] including marketing strategies for the expansion, 
and negotiating sensitive contracts with suppliers that are crucial to the continued success and 
expansion of the United States Company. 
The petitioner further stated that the beneficiary held the position of marketing manager for the petitioner's 
foreign parent company immediately prior to her transfer to the United States. The petitioner described the 
beneficiary's foreign employment as follows: 
[Slhe was responsible for in all respect for the management and direction for the foreign 
parent company's sales programs, marketing decisions, as well as working close with the 
designers and patternmakers of the product lines. She coordinated clothing distribution and 
established sales goals. [The beneficiary] also analyzed sales statistics to formulate policy, 
purchasing of raw materials, and assisted salespeople in promoting sales. [The beneficiary] 
reviewed market analysis and trends to determine fashion trends and volume potential. 
Additionally, she was responsible for directing product simplification and standardization to 
eliminate unprofitable items from the sales line. 
The petitioner failed to specifically address the beneficiary's qualifications as a nonimmigrant intracompany 
transferee with specialized knowledge. 
The director issued a notice of intent to deny the petition on March 25, 2004, observing that the petitioner 
failed to provide a detailed clarification as to how the beneficiary's duties require specialized knowledge. 
Specifically, the director noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the beneficiary's duties involve 
WAC 04 050 52354 
Page 5 
knowledge or expertise beyond mere familiarity with an organization's product or services, and that such 
knowledge does not constitute specialized knowledge under section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. 
The director further referred to a 1994 legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service policy memorandum 
from James A. Puleo, Acting Executive Associate Commissioner, which identifies "specialized knowledge" 
as knowledge that is different and advanced compared to that generally held in the industry. The director 
noted that, according to the memorandum, the knowledge need not be proprietary, but should be crucial to the 
petitioner's interests and must go beyond general knowledge or expertise that enables an employee to merely 
produce a product or provide a service. Memorandum from James A. Puleo, Acting Associate Commissioner, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Interpretation of Special Knowledge, CO 214L-P (March 9, 1994) 
("Puleo memorandum"). 
The director instructed the petitioner as follows: 
The petitioner 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 evidence must also establish that the beneficiary's knowledge 
of the processes and procedures of your company is apart from the elementary or basic 
knowledge possessed by others. 
Additionally, provide evidence to substantiate the uniqueness to the petitioner's sales and 
marketing procedures and techniques used in marketing products that is different from other 
similar organization[s] . 
Finally, provide demonstrative evidence to show the petitioner['s] new products and evidence 
of the beneficiary['s] familiarity with the new products. 
In a response dated April 20,2004, the petitioner also referenced the Puleo memorandum and emphasized that 
the memorandum indicated that "specialized knowledge" may include knowledge of a product that is 
significantly different from that of others in the industry although it may have similarities, as well as 
knowledge that can't be transferred to a U.S. worker without a period of training that would cause a 
significant interruption of business. 
With respect to the petitioner's products, the petitioner provided the following description: 
[The petitioner] offers a unique product that is significantly different from other women 
apparel currently available in the United States. [The petitioner] offers a creative and unique 
selection of women's clothing that is tagged "The Brazilian Way (Jeitinho Brazileiro)." For 
example, our parent company has designed and manufactured a unique pair of jeans often 
referred to as the "amazing Brazilian pants." These pants, all imported from our parent 
company, is a new version of jeans, which combine a unique blend of indigofio (a specialized 
cotton fiber blend) with elastano (a form of lycra), which gives comfort and elasticity to the 
WAC 04 050 52354 
Page 6 
pants. . . . Currently, no other clothing company in the United States has the fabrication 
technology to manufacture these pants unique to our company. . . . 
Euphoria offers a large selection of women's clothing apparel that is significantly different 
[from] clothing lines currently offered in the United States, including specialty crochet tops, 
made by our own "crocheteiras," which are individuals who possesses a specialized talent in 
crocheting by creating a structuralized pattern that can only be done by hand and the human 
eye. . . . Because of the sizing differences between Brazilian and U.S. garments and the often 
revealing nature of the blouse for which the blouse is known, the specialty crafted blouses 
have to be designed for the United States market, which is deemed more conservative than 
the Brazilian market. 
Our clothing line is substantially different, offering unique apparel under our proprietary 
Banzai line that is not found elsewhere in the United States. [Olur clothing line symbolizes 
the Brazilian culture. 
The petitioner also elaborated on the beneficiary's qualifications as an employee possessing specialized 
knowledge, noting that she is fluent in English, Portuguese and Spanish, and possesses "the unique 
knowledge of our company's proprietary product line, which is essential for the position of Marketing 
Manager." The petitioner emphasized that her position requires "an integral understanding not only of our 
proprietary product line, but of the Latin market, including its unique culture, which are product line 
encompasses and the language." The petitioner further explained: 
[The beneficiary] clearly possesses knowledge that is invaluable to our competitiveness in the 
United States market. Our clothing line is made up of exclusive garments that are not 
otherwise found on the United States market and is what has made our United States 
company so successful in such a short time. [The beneficiary] has established that she is 
uniquely qualified to contribute to our United States company's knowledge of our Brazilian 
operating conditions. Specifically, [the beneficiary] has acquired unique knowledge of our 
Brazilian product through the prospective [sic] of being a sales associate, manager and 
Purchase department manager with our parent company. Being a Brazilian native herself, [the 
beneficiary] understands the culture and meaning behind our clothing line. 
As Marketing Manager with our parent company in Brazil, [the beneficiary] was utilized as a 
key employee and was tasked with significant assignments that clearly enhanced our 
company's productivity, competitiveness, image and financial position. . . . [The beneficiary] 
was tasked with the critical duties of establishing the company's promotional and marketing 
goals for expansion to the United States. This significant assignment required an individual 
with in-depth knowledge of our company's unique product line and image, as well as out 
[sic] company's goals and limits. As a result of [the beneficiary's] intimate knowledge of our 
proprietary clothing line, her in-depth knowledge of our company's image and Brazilian 
culture and the language, our company's expansion to the United States was a resounding 
success. 
WAC 04 050 52354 
Page 7 
[The beneficiary's] specific and detailed knowledge of our product line and image unique to 
our parent company in Brazil is required for our United States company to succeed in 
marketing our proprietary clothing line in the United States. [The beneficiary] also possesses 
an uncommon knowledge of the Brazilian culture, which is imbedded in our product line. 
[The beneficiary] possesses specialized knowledge that is crucial to the success of our United 
States company. . . . It is virtually impossible to transfer or teach this knowledge to another 
individual, as this information is unique and not found elsewhere in the United States. 
In support of its rebuttal to the notice of intent to deny, the petitioner provided a partial copy of a Notice of 
Decision denying the petitioner's previous request to classify the beneficiary as an L-1A intracompany 
transferee, a photograph of one of the foreign entity's retail stores, and copies of advertisements for the 
foreign entity's stores. Referring to the previous denial, the petitioner stated that the decision had stated that 
"an L-1B was the appropriate visa for [the beneficiary]," and the petitioner had therefore filed for, and 
received approval for, L-1B classification previously. 
The director denied the petition on October 18, 2004, concluding that the petitioner had not established that 
the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that the U.S. employment is in a capacity requiring 
specialized knowledge. Referring to the petitioner's response to the notice of intent to deny, the director 
observed that the petitioner "merely described the beneficiary's duties and repeatedly states that the duties 
require 'in-depth knowledge of our company's unique product line and image' and 'Brazilian culture and the 
language'." The director noted that the petitioner provided no evidence to demonstrate the "exclusiveness" of 
its marketing procedures and/or techniques, and emphasized that mere familiarity or knowledge of the 
petitioner's products in itself is insufficient to demonstrate specialized knowledge. 
The director further noted that the record contained no comprehensive description of the beneficiary's duties 
to establish that the duties are so out of the ordinary that they would require the services of an employee who 
possesses specialized knowledge. The director also found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary's skills and knowledge of the petitioner's marketing practice is different or advanced, or that the 
petitioner's business practice, marketing procedures and/or sales procedures are different from those of other 
organizations operating similar businesses. 
Finally, the director responded to the petitioner's assertion that CIS had recommended the filing of an L-1B 
petition, noting that a careful reading of the notice of decision denying the L-1A nonimmigrant petition shows 
that no such suggestion or recommendation was made. With respect to the approval of the initial L-1B 
classification petition, the director noted "USCIS is not required to compound the error by approving the 
second petition." 
On appeal, the petitioner reiterates portions of its response to the director's request for evidence and claims 
that "[c]ontrary to the Decision, our clothing line is substantially different, offering unique apparel under our 
proprietary Banzai line that is not found elsewhere in the United States. Our clothing line symbolizes Brazil." 
WAC 04 050 52354 
Page 8 
The petitioner again emphasizes that the U.S. assignment requires "an individual with in-depth knowledge of 
our company's unique product line and image" and states that the petitioner's success depends upon the 
beneficiary's "knowledge of our proprietary clothing line, her in-depth knowledge of our company's image 
and Brazilian culture and the language." Finally, the petitioner stresses that it is "virtually impossible to 
transfer or teach this knowledge to another individual, as this information is unique and not found elsewhere 
in the United States." 
The petitioner's assertions are not persuasive. The petitioner has not submitted evidence demonstrating that 
the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that she would be employed by the U.S. entity in a 
position requiring specialized knowledge. 
When examining the specialized knowledge capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(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 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 (Cornrn. 1981) (citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. 618 (R.C. 
1970) and Matter of LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 816 (R.C. 1971)).' 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 slulls 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. 
1 
Although the cited precedents pre-date the current statutory definition of "specialized knowledge," the MO 
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 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-1B classification. 
WAC 04 050 52354 
Page 9 
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 establishing promotional 
and marketing goals for company expansion, establishing sales goals, reviewing market analysis and trends, 
contributing to corporate strategy, overseeing marketing and promotion of the product line, and developing 
marketing strategies and promotions are all tasks typically performed by any individual responsible for 
overseeing expansion into a new market. As discussed further below, the petitioner has not established that 
the particular position offered to the beneficiary requires an individual with knowledge beyond that which 
would normally be possessed by a marketing professional in the petitioner's industry. 
The petitioner's claim that the beneficiary is eligible for this visa classification appears to be based on her 
purported "special" knowledge related to the proprietary interests of the petitioner and its foreign parent 
company, specifically the foreign entity's "unique" clothing line. However, the record is devoid of any 
documentary evidence that the beneficiary's position involves special knowledge of the petitioning 
organization's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests as required in 
the regulations. See 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). The petitioner has submitted no supporting documentation 
to substantiate its claims regarding the "unique" nature of the foreign entity's product lines. Based on the 
petitioner's representations, the foreign entity has a line of contemporary women's apparel that includes a 
"new version of jeans" and "specialty crochet tops," which "symbolize the Brazilian culture." The fact that 
the foreign entity may utilize a different fabric blend in the clothing it manufacturers does not support a 
finding that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge based on her experience marketing these 
products. Every company in the petitioning organization's industry realistically has variations in product 
design and manufacture. As noted by the director in issuing the request for evidence, mere familiarity with an 
organization's product or services does not constitute specialized knowledge under section 214(c)(2)(B) of the 
Act. 
The petitioner has not supported its claim that the beneficiary possesses knowledge that can be gained only 
with the foreign entity, or that the position requires such knowledge. Specifically, the petitioner has neither 
explained nor documented why the knowledge required to market its products would be different from that 
required to market similar apparel in the United States. Simply stating that the products "represent the 
Brazilian culture" is not sufficient. The beneficiary's knowledge of the Brazilian culture and her ability to 
speak multiple languages does not constitute specialized knowledge related to the petitioner's organization. 
Going on record without 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 Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Moreover, even if the petitioner had established that knowledge of the foreign entity's products alone 
constitutes specialized knowledge, the evidence submitted does not demonstrate that the beneficiary would be 
required to utilize this knowledge in the proposed position. Although the petitioner emphasizes that the 
beneficiary's familiarity with its "unique" Brazilian apparel is essential to the position, the petitioner's 
invoices and purchase orders show that the U.S. company in fact purchases much of its inventory fiom 
domestic wholesalers and manufacturers based in 
 that the petitioner imports 
some of its merchandise from a Brazilian manufacturer, 
 " but there is no evidence to 
establish that the petitioner even imports and sells the foreign entity's products. Again, the record does not 
WAC 04 050 52354 
Page 10 
support a finding that prior experience with the foreign entity or knowledge of its products is required for the 
position, nor does it substantiate the petitioner's claim that it would be "virtually impossible to transfer or 
teach" the beneficiary's knowledge to another individual. 
In Matter of Penner, the Commissioner discussed the legislative intent behind the creation of the specialized 
knowledge category. 18 I&N Dec. 49 (Comm. 1982). Although the definition of "specialized knowledge" in 
effect at the time of Matter of Penner was superseded by the 1990 Act to the extent that the former definition 
required a showing of "proprietary" knowledge, the reasoning behind Matter ofPenner remains applicable to 
the current matter. The decision noted that the 1970 House Report, H.R. No. 91-851, 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, various witnesses responded that they understood the 
legislation would allow "high-level people," "experts," individuals with "unique" skills, and that it would not 
include "lower categories" of workers or "skilled craft workers." Matter ofPenner, supra at 50 (citing 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 that 
an expansive reading of the specialized knowledge provision, such that it would include skilled workers and 
technicians, is not warranted. 
The AAO acknowledges the petitioner's claim that the marketing manager position is a key position that is 
crucial to the petitioner's success in expanding its presence in the U.S. market. However, merely establishing 
that the beneficiary will undertake a "key" position will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The 
petitioner must still submit evidence to establish that the beneficiary has been employed abroad in a position 
involving specialized knowledge and that she will be employed by the United States entity in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. See 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3). The AAO notes that the only supporting documentary 
evidence submitted in support of the petitioner's claims regarding the beneficiary's specialized knowledge of 
its "unique" products was a photograph of one of the foreign entity's stores and a few advertisements. Upon 
review, in every instance where the petitioner attempted to distinguish the beneficiary as having specialized 
knowledge, the petitioner failed to submit any evidence that would allow the AAO to evaluate the claim. The 
petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence consisted solely of a letter fi-om the petitioner that 
provided little new information, and the above-referenced photograph and advertisements. On appeal, the 
petitioner essentially re-states the unsupported assertions made in response to the director's request for 
evidence. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sof$ci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
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 evidence presented, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, or that she would be 
employed by the petitioner in a capacity requiring specialized knowledge. For this reason, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
WAC 04 050 52354 
Page 11 
The AAO acknowledges that CIS previously approved an L-1B petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary for 
the same position. The prior approval does not preclude CIS from denying an extension of the original visa 
based on reassessment of beneficiary's qualifications. Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 
2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). It must be emphasized that that each nonimmigrant petition filing is a 
separate proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of proof. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.8(d). In 
making a determination of statutory eligibility, CIS is limited to the information contained in that individual 
record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(16)(ii). Despite any number of previously approved petitions, 
CIS does not have any authority to confer an immigration benefit when the petitioner fails to meet its burden 
of proof in a subsequent petition. See section 291 of the Act. 
If the previous nonimmigrant petition was approved based on the same unsupported assertions that are 
contained in the current record, the approval would constitute material and gross error on the part of the 
director. Due to the lack of evidence of eligibility in the present record, the AAO finds that the director was 
justified in departing from the previous approval by denying the present request to extend the beneficiary's 
status. 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comrn. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency 
must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 
(6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 
2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). The director is instructed to review the beneficiary's previous 
nonimmigrant approval for possible revocation, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.