remanded L-1B Case: Litigation Support Services

@ ~~i~~~~ Services 
FILE: WAC 04 180 50142 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER   at el 1 O 1005 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the I migration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L) 
(II ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
I 
INSTRUCTIONS: I 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have bee returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
I 
obert P. Wiemann, rector w 
f - Administrative ~~~41s Office 
WAC 04 180 50142 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimml ant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The director's ecision will be 
withdrawn and the matter remanded for further consideration and a new decision. 1 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1 
intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Delaware limited 
provides litigation support services, and claims that it is a subsidiary of SPI 
Manila, Philippines. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
specialized knowledge or that she will be employed in a capacity that involves 
director noted that the petitioner had not provided a clear description of 
petitioner, or a clear description of how the beneficiary's position requires the 
possesses specialized knowledge. The director found that the petitioner 
beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished and not 
in the beneficiary's field. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner: (1) clearly described the 
the petitioner and its parent company; (2) provided a detailed explanation of the 
knowledge required for the offered position; and (3) provided ample 
knowledge is proprietary, uncommon, and not generally known in the 
three Immigration and Naturalization Service (now Citizenship and 
provide guidance in the interpretation of specialized knowledge and 
criteria outlined in the memoranda. Finally, counsel contends that the 
for additional evidence before denying the petition if he did not 
otherwise found it to be insufficient. 
To establish eligibility for the nonimmigrant L-l visa classification, the petitioner must m et the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, within three years preceding th beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States, a qualifying organization must have mployed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge ca acity, for one 
continuous year. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporari y 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. 
i 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will e 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this 
WAC 04 180 50142 
Page 3 
(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 perf rmed. 
r 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that 
education, training, and employment qualifies hirnlher to perform the 
the United States; however, the work in the United States need 
which the alien performed abroad. 
This matter presents two related, but distinct issues: (1) whether the beneficiary 
knowledge; and (2) whether the proposed employment is in a capacity that requires 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the following: 
For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered to be serving in a 
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has a 
knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets 
advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines "specialized knowledge" as 
[Slpecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization's 
service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and its 
international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the 
processes and procedures. 
The petitioner indicated that the offered position "is crucial to [the petitioner] because ov 
management is provided by the Project Managers like [the beneficiary] who possess current 
The petitioner submitted the nonirnrnigrant petition on June 10, 2004. In a June 1, 2004 letter 
the petition, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary satisfies four criteria of specialized 
outlined in a 1987 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) memorandum in that she: 
knowledge that is valuable to the employer's competitiveness in the marketplace; (ii) is uniquely 
contribute to the U.S. employer's knowledge of foreign operating conditions; (iii) has been a 
abroad and has been given significant assignments that have enhanced the employer's 
competitiveness, image, or financial position; and (iv) possesses knowledge that can only be 
extensive prior experience with that employer. See Memo. from Richard E. Norton, Associate 
Examinations, USINS, to Regional Commissioners et al, Interpretation of Specialized Knowledge 
L ClassiJication, CO 214.2L-P (October 26, 1988), reprinted in 65 No. 43, Interpreter Releases 
(Nov. 7, 1988). ( 'Xorton Memo") 
submitted with 
knowledge as 
(1) possesses 
qualified to 
key employee 
productivity, 
gained through 
Commissioner, 
Under the 
1170, 1194 
WAC 04 180 50142 
Page 4 
foreign entity's] offshore production technology." The petitioner provided the following d scription of the 
proposed duties: 1 
As a Project Manager, [the beneficiary] applies proprietary knowledge of SPI's int 
data conversion services that she acquired through 9 years of progressively respon 
experience with [the foreign entity]. [The beneficiary] provides technical and clie 
supervision to coding and indexing projects that are executed at [the foreign entity' 
production facilities. [The beneficiary] will report directly to the Director 
Management of [the petitioner]. The Project Manager will effectively 
development of [a] cross-functional project team (up to 20 people), guide 
making process, develop and maintain timelines for each project, ensure in 
operation and long-range perspectives, track project progress, and pro 
management interface between clients and the [foreign entity's] producti 
Specifically, [the beneficiary] will be responsible for: 
Production Activities: 
Presiding over a joint production~system meeting to discuss procedural details on 
achieve initial production parameters. 
Determining initial production parameters based on preliminary workflow and 
review. 
Coordinating matters related to project instructions, accuracy, quality requireme 
related programs. 
Initiating preventive/corrective measures and coordinates with the SPI project 
qualify-related issues. 
Client Specifications and Requirements: 
Receiving, reviewing and distributing client specifications to the SPI project team 
Approving project specifications and updates. 
Ensuring all project information is disseminated to the SPI project team. 
Serving as client interface by coordinating/communicating directly with the 
matters involving project instructions, job queries, production schedules, 
requirements and pricing. 
These duties are directly related to the processes and procedures used at SPI's o 
facility. No U.S. workers, except for those transferred to the U.S. by [the foreign 
[sic] would have the requisite knowledge of SP17s proprietary data conversion 
dent on 
accuracy 
The petitioner further indicated that its corporate group had been the first computer database 
the world to receive IS0 9002 certification. The petitioner stated that its technology 
projects faster and more cost-effective than any other method in the industry," and 
"utilizes a five-stage quality control process involving a proprietary application 
correlations on coded and image databases, and scans all records for 
technology is not available on the open market." The petitioner also 
WAC 04 180 50142 
Page 5 
contract with Merrill Corporation to provide litigation support services for a leading U.S. n 
which would involve transaction coding of medical documents with an estimated 
pages. 
[The beneficiary] is responsible for analyzing, designing, developing and 
conversion systems for database creation projects utilizing [the foreign 
production resources. [The beneficiary] also acts as [the foreign 
client. [The beneficiary] has been involved in the Menill 
inception, and has been instrumental in the project set-up of 
[The beneficiary] has been interfacing directly with [the 
is uniquely qualified to manager [sic] this project. 
With respect to the beneficiary's qualifications, the petitioner indicated that she had comp1e:ed 
degree in civil engineering. The petitioner also briefly outlined the beneficiary's employmen: 
includes five years of experience as a document analyst with an unrelated company an11 
experience as a production supervisor with the foreign entity, where she was responsible 
monitoring, and implementing data conversion systems for an automated mappinglfaciliti:~ 
project. The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary currently works as a project officer at the 
headquarters performing the following duties: 
The petitioner also submitted the beneficiary's resume that lists over twenty seminars she a ended between 
1995 and 2004. The resume does not indicate whether the training seminars, which clude project 
management, business communications, stress management, team building, supervisory de elopment, and 
customer service leadership courses, were provided by the foreign entity or by an external prov der. 
i 
a bachelor's 
history, which 
two years of 
-Tor supervising, 
management 
foreign entity's 
In support of the petition, the petitioner provided: (1) the corporate group's 2002 annual rep0 
brochures, newsletters, and information from the company's web site further describing 
litigation support services, methodologies and quality management processes; and (3) an 
for the U.S. company. The organizational chart indicates that the petitioner's project 
currently employs a director, project management, and a project manager, 
employed with the foreign parent company.' With respect to the project 
company newsletter states: 
For additional staffing of the U.S. project management office, we have 
of bringing experienced project officers fi-om our Philippine facility to the 
internships of approximately one year. This approach to staffing serves the dual 
providing experienced senior-level staffing in our U.S. office, and sending interns 
Philippines after their tenure with a solid appreciation of our clients' needs. 
1 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) records show that the petitioner's direct 
management and project manager were employed as L-1 A intracompany transferees. 
WAC 04 180 50142 
Page 6 
The director denied the petition on June 24, 2004, concluding that the petitioner had not 
beneficiary has specialized knowledge or that she will be employed in the United 
requiring specialized knowledge. Specifically, the director noted: 
The petitioner has not described the employer's business activities in a manner that a1 ws for 
a clear understanding of the products and services that are provided by the employ r to its 
customers, and how the beneficiary's position requires the services of an individ a1 who 
possesses specialized knowledge. 
i 
Merely indicating that the beneficiary has 9 years of progressively [sic] work experie 
[the foreign entity] does not demonstrate specialized knowledge. The petitioner 
submit probative evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary is employed or 
employed in a capacity involving specialized knowledge. 
It appears to USCIS that the beneficiary is a skilled Project Manager experienced ith the 
petitioner's particular services. However, the USCIS does not find that simple experie ce and 
familiarity constitutes "special knowledge["] within the meaning of section 214(c)(2 (B) of 
the Act. 
r 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that the evidence on record establishes that the 
his review of the facts and application of the law. Counsel asserts that the petitioner 
business activities and provides a detailed summary of the information and 
initial petition regarding the petitioner and the services it provides. 
specialized knowledge qualifications, counsel re-states portions of the 
asserts: 
The petitioner clearly stated it is transfening the beneficiary solely to oversee the Baach 
Robinson & Lewis LLC/Menill Corporation project. As stated in the employer suppo letter, 
the beneficiary has been involved in this project since its inception. The beneficia was 
selected for this overseas assignment because she has been instrumental in establishi g and 
customizing [the foreign entity's] capabilities to satisfy the customers' requirement . The 
beneficiary has been interfacing directly with the Baach Robinson & Lewis LLC a d the 
Merrill Corporation and is uniquely qualified . . . to manage this project. 
i 
Counsel further states: "The key to the petitioner's business is the in-house production facili 
company's headquarters in the Philippines utilizing proprietary technology and processes. 
transferred to the offshore facility and Project Managers are transferred to the U.S. to 
Counsel contends that the petitioner provided detailed descriptions of the 
project, and the petitioner's proprietary technology, and "established a 
WAC 04 180 50142 
Page 7 
U.S. project." Counsel states: "[Nlo reasonable person could conclude the petitioner failed o describe how 
the beneficiary's position requires the services of an individual who possesses specialized kno ledge." 
i 
Finally, counsel objects to the director's findings that the petitioner had not established that 
knowledge is "uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished and not generally known by 
beneficiary's field." Counsel notes that the director failed to acknowledge the five 
experience gained by the beneficiary prior to joining the foreign entity, giving her a total 
experience in litigation support services. Counsel further refers to the aforementioned 
as 1994 and 2002 INS memoranda regarding the adjudication of L-1B petitions, noting 
set forth the standards for specialized knowledge. See Memo. from James A. 
Commr., Office of Operations, Immigration and Naturalization Serv., to All Dist. 
Special Knowledge, 1-2 (March 9, 1994) (copy on file with Am. Immig. Law 
from Fujie Ohata, Assoc. Commr., Service Center Operations, Immigration 
Service Center Directors, Interpretation of Specialized Knowledge, 
2002)(copy on file with Am. Immig. Law Assn.)("Ohata Memo") 
The petitioner's proprietary technology and procedures distinguish it from its 
allowing the company to land U.S. contracts like the Baach Robinson & Lewis 
Corporation project. The success of this project depends on the proper 
technology between petitioner's overseas facility and the U.S. subsidiary. 
could not service this contract without an individual, such as the 
qualified in-house at [the foreign entity.] 
Counsel states that the beneficiary satisfies five criteria or characteristics of an individual 
knowledge" as outlined in the Puleo Memo. First, counsel contends that the beneficiary possesses 
that is valuable to the employer's competitiveness in the marketplace, explaining: "[The 
utilizes a five-stage quality control process involving a proprietary application that performs 
correlations on coded and image databases and scans all records for errors." Counsel further 
Referring to the Puleo Memo, counsel further contends that the beneficiary is qualified to 
petitioner's knowledge of foreign operating conditions as a result of special knowledge not 
the industry; has been utilized abroad in a capacity involving significant assignments whi 
the employer's productivity, competitiveness, image or financial position; possesses know 
be gained only through prior experience with the foreign employer; and possesses knowle 
process which cannot be easily transferred or taught to another individual. Counsel note 
submitted the beneficiary's resume, which "outlines her extensive training regimen 
advanced knowledge of [the foreign entity's] proprietary technology." Counsel asserts t 
petitioner's proprietary technologies can only be gained with the parent company, and 
Penner, 18 I&N Dec. 49 (Comm. 1988), states that a distinction can be made between a 
knowledge to produce a product through physical or skilled labor and an individual 
process or function essential to the company's operation. Counsel notes that the benefi 
a project rather than performing hands-on document coding and indexing serv 
involvement in setting up the Merrill Corporation project overseas, is uniquely q 
w-th "specialized 
knowledge 
foreign entity] 
cross-database 
clzims: 
WAC 04 180 50142 
Page 8 
project. Counsel states that the beneficiary is one of the few employees within the foreign en 
the U.S. position based on her involvement in setting up the project overseas, and claims: "In 
the knowledge an individual must be trained at the [the foreign entity's] headquarters in 
entity's] proprietary processes, procedures and technology for several years." 
Counsel concludes that the director "failed to consider the description of beneficia 
progressively responsible work experience with the parent company [sic] private and 
Considering an L-1B petition can be submitted with only 6 months of work 
revised blank [sic] regulations, the beneficiary's work experience and 
comments that the director denied the petition without issuing a 
director "failed to understand the petition or was unwilling to 
minimum, it should have issued a Request for Evidence." 
Upon review, the director's decision will be withdrawn and the matter remanded for further co 
a new decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2@)(8) states: 
The director examined the petitioner's evidence and determined that the petitioner had 
sufficient evidence to establish whether the beneficiary was employed abroad in a position 
specialized knowledge, or to establish that the position offered in the United States 
specialized knowledge specific to the petitioner's products or processes. 
However, the record as presently constituted does not contain any evidence of clear 
justify the director's decision to deny the petition without first requesting 
notice of intent to deny the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8); see 
Associate Director, Operations, USCIS, to Regional Directors, et al, 
of Intent to Deny (NOID), HQOPRD 7012 (February 1 6,2005). 
If there is evidence of ineligibility in the record, an application or petition shall be 
that basis notwithstanding any lack of required initial evidence . . . . [I]n other 
where there is no evidence of ineligibility, and initial evidence or eligibility informe.tion 
missing or the Service finds that the evidence submitted either does not fully 
eligibility for the requested benefit or raises underlying questions regarding eligibility, 
Service shall request the missing initial evidence, and may request additional evidence 
Accordingly, as the evidence of record does not directly reflect that the petitioner or 
the director should not have denied the petition based on a lack of evidence without 
explanation and documentation. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(8); 8 C.F.R. $ 
the evidence of record raises underlying questions regarding 
request the missing initial evidence, and may request 
denied on 
instances 
is 
establish 
the 
. . . 
WAC 04 180 50142 
Page 9 
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. 9 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a det iled description 
of the services to be performed sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. Id. 
I 
When analyzing whether a beneficiary's knowledge rises to the level of specialized, it is 
the AAO to look beyond the stated job duties and consider the importance of the 
the business's product or service, management operations, or decision-making 
I&N Dec. 1 17, 120 (Comm. 1981) (citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. 
LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 816 (R.C. 1971)).~ As stated by the 
considering whether the beneficiaries possessed specialized 
did not find that the occupations inherently qualified the 
Dec. at 52. Rather, the beneficiaries were considered to 
of a skilled worker. Id. The Commissioner also provided the following clanfication: 
A distinction can be made between a person whose skills and knowledge enable him 
produce a product through physical or skilled labor and the person who is employed 
for his ability to carry out a key process or function which is important or 
business' operation. 
Id. at 53. 
It should also be noted that the statutory definition of specialized knowledge requires 
comparisons in order to determine what constitutes specialized knowledge. The term 
is not an absolute concept and cannot be clearly defined. As observed in 1756, 
"[slimply put, specialized knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a 
9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). The Congressional record specifically states that the L-1 
personnel." See generally, H.R. Rep. No. 91-851, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750. 
a position within the petitioning company that is "of crucial 
Dictionary 605 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 2001). In general, all 
"important" to a petitioner's enterprise. If an employee did not 
an enterprise, there would be no rational economic reason to 
importance" or "key personnel" must rise above the level of 
based on the definition of "specialized knowledge" and the 
Although the cited precedents pre-date the current statutory definition of "specialized 
intended scope of the "specialized knowledge" L-1B classification. 
WAC 04 180 50142 
Page 10 
must make comparisons not only between the claimed specialized knowledge employee and t e general labor 
market, but also between that employee and the remainder of the petitioner's workforce. 
I 
Reviewing the Congressional record, the Commissioner concluded in Matter of Penner 
reading of the specialized knowledge provision, such that it would include skilled workers 
not warranted. The Commissioner emphasized that the specialized knowledge worker cla 
intended for "all employees with any level of specialized knowledge." Matter of Penner, 
Or, as noted in Matter of Colley, "[mlost employees today are specialists and have bee 
specialized knowledge. However, in view of the House Report, it can not be conclude 
with specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are eligible 
intracompany transferees." 18 I&N Dec. 1 17, 1 19 (Comm. 198 1). According to Matte 
conclusion would permit extremely large numbers of persons to qualify for the 'L-1' 
"key personnel" that Congress specifically intended. 18 I&N Dec. at 53; see also, 175 
15 (concluding that Congress did not intend for the specialized knowledge capacity t 
with specialized knowledge, but rather to "key personnel" and "executives.") 
In this matter, the petitioner has not documented the beneficiary's claimed specialized kno 
the petitioner has submitted voluminous documentation and explanation regarding the ser 
the U.S. and foreign entities, it has provided only a brief and vague description of the bene 
of employment with the foreign entity. On appeal, counsel emphasizes that the benefi 
employees capable of filling the U.S. position, but supported this statement only with a va 
role in the "set up" of a project for the U.S. client at the foreign entity's facility. Goin 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burd 
proceedings. Matter of SofJZci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn. 1998) (citing Matter 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). To cure these deficiencies, the petiti 
comprehensive description of all positions held by the beneficiary since joining the fo 
all job duties performed, the specific knowledge and skills applied in each position, 
requirements for each position. The petitioner should also describe all projects to w 
been assigned, particularly the Memll Corporation project, and any special or ad 
would help to establish that the beneficiary should be considered "key personnel," as 
The petitioner has submitted a resume for the beneficiary that provides a training summary. 
to the training seminars by course title only. If the beneficiary has undertaken 
foreign entity, the petitioner should identify the type and length of training, the 
evidence, such as course completion certificates or other records, to establish 
completed the training. The petitioner should also describe the training 
similarly employed workers in the foreign organization. If all employees 
mere completion of the training program is insufficient to establish 
advanced. 
The record contains no information regarding other similarly employed workers employed 
entity which would allow CIS to make comparisons between the beneficiary and the 
entity's workforce. The petitioner should identify the total number of workers 
WAC 04 180 50142 
Page I I 
the beneficiary works, the number of workers employed in the same or similar roles, 
organizational chart for the foreign entity. As noted above, the petitioner has stated that the 
of "the few" employees of the foreign entity capable of performing the duties of the 
United States, but did not provide documentary evidence to support this statement. 
further describe the staffing of the United States entity. If the petitioner employs 
to be filled by the beneficiary or similar positions, it should describe how the 
from those of the other employees, and describe the educational and 
employed worker. 
Counsel states on appeal that the beneficiary earned the offered position of project manager 
nine years of experience with the foreign organization and its proprietary processes and 
of current position openings available on the foreign entity's web site reveals that the 
for a project officer/project manager position include a college degree, two years 
management, knowledge of traditional project management methodologies, and 
team building skills. The petitioner should clarify its statement that it would 
foreign entity in order to prepare another individual to perform the duties of 
In addition, the AAO notes that the supporting company documents submitted with the initial etition indicate 
that the company transfers project managers fiom the foreign entity to complete "internsh'ps" within the 
petitioner's U.S. operations. On appeal, counsel suggests that the beneficiary is coming to th United States 
solely to manage a specific project. The petitioner should clarify the purpose for the bene ciary's transfer 
and provide a more detailed description of the scope and anticipated length of the U.S. project. 
i 
The lack of evidence in the record as presently constituted makes it impossible to classify th beneficiary's 
knowledge of the petitioner's technology and processes as advanced, and precludes a fi ding that the 
beneficiary's role is "of crucial importance" to the organization. Although the howledg need not be 
narrowly held within an organization in order to be specialized knowledge, the L-1B visa ca egory was not 
created in order to allow the transfer of employees with any degree of knowledge of a comp ny's products. 
As the petitioner did not have sufficient notice of the deficiencies in its evidence, the p tition will be 
remanded, and the petitioner shall be given the opportunity to submit additional evidence in or er to establish 
the beneficiary's specialized knowledge qualifications. 1 
Finally, the petitioner has not provided sufficient information or documentation regarding 
technologies and processes that would distinguish it from other companies providing lit 
services. Any company offering services in this industry would reasonably utilize 
control procedures and methodologies for transferring data and coding documents. The pet 
referred to "proprietary technology" and indicates that the beneficiary creates or implements 
failed to provide a description of any technology that is specific to the petitioner. Nor dic. 
indicate how the beneficiary utilizes proprietary technology to perform her current duties, or 
this knowledge to manage projects in the United States. The petitioner should explain how its 
processes differ from those used by other companies in its industry, and why knowledge needed 
the duties of the U.S. position could not be easily transferred to an experienced project manager 
experience in the petitioner's industry. 
its proprietary 
gation support 
sophisticated quality 
tioner vaguely 
databases, but 
the petitioner 
how she will use 
.:ethnologies or 
to perform 
with similar 
WAC 04 180 50142 
Page 12 
In this matter, the evidence of record raises underlying questions regarding eligibility. Fu 
required in order to establish that the petitioner and beneficiary meet the requirements for 
The director's decision will be withdrawn and the matter remanded for 
decision. The director is instructed to issue a request for evidence addressing the 
other evidence he deems necessary. 
ORDER: The decision of the director dated June 24, 2004 is withdrawn. The matter is rema ded for further 
action and consideration consistent with the above discussion and entry of a new decision. 
I