sustained L-1B Case: Automation Systems

identifying data deleted to 
preven r elearl y mvmmted 
invasim of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeiand Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
File: LIN 05 034 5 1802 Ofice: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: (1CI 2 4 2006 
IN RE: 
Petition: 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Appeals Office 
LIN 05 034 5 1802 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Offlce (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seelung to employ the beneficiary as an L-1B nonimmigrant 
intracornpany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant 6 section 1 Ol(a)(l 5)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1 101(a)(15)(L). The 
automation systems. It claims to be the parent company 
Cambridge, Ontario, Canada. The petitioner seeks to empl 
specialist until April 15, 2007. The petitioner has employed the beneficih in this position in L-1B status since 
April 16,2004. ' 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge or that the position offered requires an individual with 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, counsd for the petitioner disputes the director's 
decision and asserts that the beneficiary does, in fact, possess specialized knowledge regarding the 
petitioner's employee training programs, and that the U.S. assignment requires the beneficiary's specific 
specialized knowledge. The petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence in support of the appeal. 
To establish L-1 eligibility, the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)~. Specifically, within three years 
preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, 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. 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) fbrther 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 defmed in paragraph (I)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
1 
 The record shows that the beneficiary, a visa-exempt Canadian &&en, submitted a Form 1-129, Petition for 
a Nonimmigrant Worker, requesting L-1B classification at a Class A port of entry on April 16,2004, pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(17)(i). She was admitted to the United Statesjn L-1B classification and issued a Form 
1-94, Departure Record, valid until April 15, 2007. It appears that the 1-129 petition was either lost or never 
properly forwarded to the Nebraska Service Center for formal ddjudication, as there is no record of the first 
petition in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) electronic records. The petitioner filed the 
instant petition, requesting the same employment dates, in order to obtain a Form 1-797 Approval Notice. 
LIN 05 034 5 1 802 
Page 3 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in i3n executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed descriPtioh of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one ~antinuous 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,pployqent abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies hindher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, &e*work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed a%road. 
This matter presents two related, but distinct, issues:, (1) whether the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge; and, (2) whether the proposed employment is $ a capacity that requires specialized knowledge. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Ej 1 184(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. 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 advanoed level of knowledge or expertise in the orgadzation9s 
processes and procedures. 
The nonimmigrant petition was filed on Novmber 17, 2004. In a letter dated Novembef 19, 2004, the 
petitioner provided a detailed description of the beneficiary's previous position as "Human Resources 
Representative - Training and Cornrnuntications," with the petitioner's Canadian affiliate. The petitioner also 
described the beneficiary's specialized knowledge in a thorough manner. Finally, the petitioner provided the 
following description of the beneficiary's current U.S. position of Learning and Development Specialist: 
In this capacity, [the beneficiary] is responsibie for proving [sic] key support and guidance to 
the company's Global Learning and Development and business unit HR functions in the 
development and implementation of learning and organizational development initiatives, 
including change management, survey implementation, e-Learning programs, educational 
assistance and career development for the company's employees. 
LIN 05 034 5 1802 
Page 4 
[The beneficiary] draws upon her specialized knowledge and expertise to desim develop, 
implement, deliver, and evaluate highly-specialized training and curriculum development 
programs for [company] employees. She is responsible for project management of the 
company's needs assessment surveys, including data management, reporting and feedback 
processes. She facilitates and co-facilitates [the petitioner's] core skills programming, 
including Leading for Results, Career Development, Financial Management, and other 
programs as deemed appropriate. In addition, [the beneficiary] interfaces with the company's 
business units, Human Resource staff, and external consultants on competency development 
projects and is engaged in data gathering and analysis , focus groups and interviews. 
The petitioner fivther emphasized that the beneficiary is required to utilize her previous experience acquired 
with the Canadian company to identify the training and developmental needs of the company's business units 
and employees and to develop strategies plan and programs which address the needs identified. The 
petitioner stated that the U.S. position specifically requires "specialized knowledge concerning the company's 
current training strategies and program, including the process by which the company identifies and assesses 
the training and developmental needs of its business units and employees, as well as the manner in which the 
company identifies, selects, develops, and customizes and delivers the required training programs." The 
petitioner indicated that the position also requires proprietary knowledge related to the company's course 
subjects, including curriculum covering the company's products, techniques and processes. 
On November 23, 2004, the director advised the petitioner that the evidence of record was insufficient to 
establish that the knowledge possesses by the beneficiary is specialized. The director observed that it 
appeared the duties to be performed appeared to be "general human resources hctions commonly performed 
by individuals throughout the industry." Accordingly, the director instructed the petitioner to provide 
evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge is advanced, noteworthy or distinguished by some unusual quality 
and not generally known by practitioners in the field. Specifically, the director requested: (1) a complete, 
detailed description of the duties perfonhed by the beneficiary in her previous foreign and current U.S. 
positions, including the percentage of time allocated to each job duty on a weekly basis; (2) evidence to 
distinguish the knowledge held by the beneficiary from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by 
others who are similarly employed within the same occupation, if the petitioner contends that the beneficiary 
possesses an advanced level of knowledge; (3) evidence of any company-specific vocational, technical, andfor 
professional development courses attended by the beneficiary, which are related to the claimed specialized 
knowledge, including details regarding the length of each course and course content; and (4) if the beneficiary 
acquired specialized knowledge only through practical employment experience, a detailed description of how 
the beneficiary's training andtor work experience differs from the training and experience an individual would 
receive whom is similarly employed within the industry. 
In a response dated December 10,2004, the petitioner stated that the "primary focus" of the U.S. position is to 
identify the needs of the company's global business units and to design, develop, customize, implement and 
evaluate learning and development strategies, plans and programs for the beneficiary of employees on a 
global basis. The petitioner stated that the position is not a human resources generalist position, but rather is a 
"unique assignment requiring an in-depth understanding and special knowledge of the company's business 
LIN 05 034 5 1 802 
Page 5 
units which operate on an international level and of the manner in which [the company] designs, develops, 
customizes, implements, delivers and evaluates its internal learning and development programs." 
The petitioner fUrther emphasized that the beneficiary had been responsible for "a number of key projects in 
this particular area" while employed by the Canadian entity, which had resulted in plans and programs that 
were subsequently implemented by the company on an international basis. The petitioner stated that the 
beneficiary thus possesses knowledge that would not be readily available in the United States and "could only 
be taught over an extensive period of time by [the beneficiary]." The petitioner asserted that the beneficiary 
was chosen for the U.S. assignment because she was the only employee within the petitioner's global 
organization who was qualified for the position. The petitioner explained that while most individuals in the 
employee educational field possess certain skills sets and knowledge relevant to the position, the beneficiary 
possesses "critical knowledge and experience covering all of the required areas, including [the company's] 
business unit needs, learning systems, consulting activities, up-fkont business and employees needs 
assessment, program strategy analysis and development, program design, program delivery, e-learning 
initiatives, program evaluation, outside vendor management, and others." The petitioner further stated that 
the beneficiary has "extensive proprietary knowledge" of the company's learning and development strategies, 
plans and programs which are not used by other companies, and again emphasized that even within the 
petitioner's organization, no other employees possesses the beneficiary's "unique knowledge and expertise." 
The petitioner further indicated that the beneficiary possesses unique knowledge in that she "has been 
responsible for developing the programs being used by [the company] on an international basis." The 
petitioner stated that its group employs 21,500 employees in more than 80 countries, and that the beneficiary 
is the only employee serving in the capacity of learning and development specialist with responsibility for 
implementing learning and organizational development programs for the company's employees on a global 
basis. The petitioner noted that while employed with the foreign entity, the beneficiary created training 
modules for the Canadian operations which were adopted for use in the United States because "no one locally 
in the United States could build them." 
The petitioner provided the requested detailed description of the beneficiary's duties within both the foreign 
and U.S. organization, as well as summaries of specific projects on which the beneficiary had worked while 
employed by the Canadian subsidiary, and the applicable knowledge gained from each project or assignment. 
Specifically, the petitioner noted the beneficiary's role in implementing a learning center, performing cross- 
business needs performance analysis, designing a training catalogue, managing employee communications 
with respect to the training function, and consulting with team managers across business units. The petitioner 
placed particular emphasis on the beneficiary's input and leadership role on cross-business and cross-regional 
teams including the Global Learning & Development Council, Global Employee Communications Council, 
Performance Management, Intranet Council and Leadership Programs, noting that her participation in these 
teams had given her exposure to global operations and had made her an important resource for the U.S. 
company even during her employment in Canada. 
In explaining the significance of the beneficiary's current and previous assignments and projects, the 
petitioner Wer stated: 
LIN 05 034 5 1 802 
Page 6 
With a specialized and focus on training & development in a cross-business unit function [the 
beneficiary] brings a skill that no other person in [the company] possesses. Currently in the 
USA there are no other training professionals who also work cross-business and have training 
as their core function. Most people in the USA are primarily strategy and planning for all of 
HR or generalists. They may also take pieces of the training function but do not specialize in 
it. The only exception to this is the Manager of Global Learning & Development to whom 
[the beneficiary] would be reporting. [The beneficiary] also posses [sic] information on [the 
company's] policies, procedures, organizational structure and global practices that would take 
years to acquire and understand for a person new to the organization and / or position. 
The petitioner also noted the beneficiary's training in and contributions to the company's newly-implemented 
business framework., as follows: 
The Way Forward is [the company's] business fiamework and is proprietary and unique to 
[the company]. [The beneficiary] was part of a unique rollout coaching team (5 people) who 
were trained in the deep details of the framework and how to coach employees to the vision 
and values. The other 4 members of the coaching team reside in the US and are all in the 
communications function. vhe beneficiary] on the other hand is the only person in a training 
& development hnction who was trained to coach this. There is now a new initiative 
underway to further drive the values of the framework to all business globally and it is being 
spearheaded out of the group [the beneficiaryj will work from in the US. Her participation as 
the specialist role to this project is invaluable. 
Finally, the petitioner provided a copy of the &eficiary's educational and professional training certificates, 
which confirmed her completion of the followipg courses and programs: "Emotional Competence Inventory" 
(The Hay Group), "Profile Certification Workshop" (Personnel Decisions International), "Instructional Design 
for New Designers Workshop" (Langevin Learning Services, Inc.), "Teaching & Training Adults Program" 
(Durham College), and "Professional ~ertifidite in Communication and Public Relations" (The University of 
Western Ontario); and a bachelor of arts degree in sociology from the University of Guelph. 
On December 23, 2004, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that the prospective position requires an individual with 
specialized knowledge. The director noted that while it is understandable that the petitioner would wish to 
transfer personnel to the United States who are familiar with the company's products, processes and 
procedures, the evidence of record did not sufficiently establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is 
uncommon, noteworthy or distinguished by some unusual quality that is not generally known by practitioners 
who are similarly educated and/or employed in the beneficiary's field, or that the foreign position or U.S. 
position actually require a person with "specialized knowledge" as that term is defmed in the regulations. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's conclusions were erroneous based on the evidence 
submitted in support of the petition and in response to the request for evidence. The petitioner asserts that 
while employed by the Canadian subsidiary, the beneficiary "gained specialized knowledge in the manner in 
which [the company] identifies and assesses the highly-particularized developmental and training needs of its 
LIN 05 034 5 1 802 
Page 7 
international business units and employees, and in the manner in which the company designs, develops, 
customizes and implements and assesses its proprietary training strategies, plans and programs to address 
those needs on an international basis." The petitioner contends that the beneficiary "played an instrumental 
and unique role" on a number of projects for the foreign entity "during a time of significant change for the 
[corporate] organization as a whole" and claims that the strategies, plans and programs the beneficiary 
developed and the knowledge she acquired of the company, its business units and employees, constitute the 
specialized knowledge which is required by the U.S. assignment. The petitioner stresses that the beneficiary 
"is a key participant and leaders in a number of critical learning and development projects which will impact 
virtually every employee within the global organization." 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner submits letters fiom six human resources managers and executives 
within the U.S. and Canadian companies who attest to the beneficiary knowledge, skills and experience, and 
the need for her services in the United States. As these letters are part of the record, their content will not be 
discussed in detail here. The petitioner reiterates the duties the beneficiary performed with the foreign entity 
and adds that the beneficiary joined the company during a "period of unprecedented change" and as a result 
acquired specialized knowledge that was "unique and intensive." The petitioner emphasizes that the 
experience the beneficiary gained working with the smaller Canadian operations can be applied within the 
U.S. structure and on a global basis. 
The petitioner asserts that the director placed undue emphasis on the beneficiary's education and experience 
leading up to her employment with the Canadian entity, noting that the position abroad does not have to 
require the beneficiary's specialized knowledge as a prerequisite to employment with the foreign entity. The 
petitioner states that the beneficiary acquired knowledge that is truly uncommon and extremely valuable while 
she was employed with the foreign entity. In a letter dated January 10, 2005, the foreign entity's Human 
Resources' manager further expands upon the beneficiary's specialized knowledge as follows: 
I saw [the beneficiary] leverage her skills to develop a knowledge and depth of experience 
which is critically valuabie to ow business. I don't believe this knowledge base could be 
replicated outside of the unique timing of her coming on board and the amount of broad, 
organization wide, strategic change which was being introduced at that point. 
[The beneficiary] was a critical player in the development, the training and the 
communication of [the Global Performance Management system] and was instrumental in 
successfklly integrating it into ow organization. 
In Canada, the beneficiary had the opportunity to work closely with both salary and hourly 
employee populations and across a representation of all our matrixed and complex business 
units. The Canadian operation is very much a micro-sized clone of the U.S. operations, with 
all the same complexities of a matrixed, multi-functioned organization, just on a much 
smaller scale. fThe beneficiary] was able to integrate the principles of Performance 
Management into each business unit's culture with success. . . . [The beneficiary's] proven 
LIN 05 034 51802 
Page 8 
successes, achieved by leveraging her professional skills with her acquired unique company 
knowledge, gained at a critical point in the company's evolution, will now be able to be 
deployed against the vast U.S. organization and Mer to our global areas of growth in Asia 
and Latin America. 
The petitioner stresses that the organization is "embarking upon a multimillion dollar global business process 
transformation where change management and organization development skills will be critical for success." 
The petitioner notes that the beneficiary has been selected as a member of the Personal Leadership 
Effectiveness Training Program which will involve the design and development of training programs for 
6,000 employees worldwide. Reciting from an attached letter from the petitioner's Manager of Global 
Learning and Development, the petitioner asserts that "no other person cwrently on [the company's] staff 
possesses the broad understanding of the competencies and skills required to adequately execute this role." 
On review, the petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary possesses "specialized knowledge'' as defined 
in $214.2(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1184(c)(2)(B), and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
In examining the specialized knowledge capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 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. Matter of Colley, 18 I&N 
Dec. 1 17,120 (Comm. 198 1) (citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec, 6 18 (R.C. 1970) md Matter of LeBEanc, 
13 I&N Dee. 816 (R.C. 1971)).~ As stated by the Commissioner in Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. 49, 52 
(Comm. 19821, when considering whether the beneficiaries possessed specialized knowledge, "the LeBlanc 
and Raulin decisions did not fmd that the occupations inherently qualified the beneficiaries for the 
classifications sought." Rather, the beneficiaries were considered to have unusual duties, skills, or knowledge 
beyond that of a skilled worker. Id. The Commissioner also provided the following clarification: 
A distinction can be made between a person whose skills and knowledge enable him or her to 
produce a product through physical or skilled labor and the person who is employed primarily 
2 
 Although the cited precedents pre-date the current statutory definition of "specialized knowledge," the AAO 
frnds 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, the cited cases, as well as Matter of Penner, remain usell guidance concerning the 
intended scope of the "specialized knowledge" L-1B classification. 
LIN 05 034 5 1 802 
Page 9 
for his ability to carry out a key process or function which is important or essential to the 
business' operation. 
Id. at 53. The petitioner in the present matter provided an ample description of the beneficiary's previous and 
current US. job duties to establish employment in a specialized knowledge capacity. Specifically, the record 
demonstrates that the beneficiary "possesses an advanced level of knowledge . . . in the organization's 
processes and procedures." The specific job duties identified by the petitioner indicate that the beneficiary 
has been and will be responsible for designing, developing, implementing, delivering, communicating and 
evaluating employee training and development strategies across business units within the organization, 
currently on a global basis. Additionally, and more importantly, the petitioner explained that the beneficiary 
played a critical role in developing the processes currently used by the organization to assess, develop, 
implement and communicate its training and development programs, specifically the "Global Performance 
Management System," as a result of having joined the foreign entity during a time in which such processes 
were being developed and integrated into the compqy. 
I 
The beneficiary's advanced knowledge of the petitioning company's internal business framework, gained as a 
result of training provided to only a few employees, her role in the integration of the company's Global 
Performance Management System in Canada, as well as her application of this knowledge in the U.S. entity 
- 
and her current responsibility for implementing these processes globally from the U.S. headquarters, qualify 
her for the classification sought. As explained by the petitioner, the beneficiary joined the foreign entity 
during a time when the organization was undergoing a change in corporate vision and implementing a 
"Performance Driven Culture." Therefore, although the beneficiary's tenure with the foreign entity was not 
lengthy, the record establishes that the knowledge she gained during that time can be considered "advanced" 
because she was directly involved in the development of new processes, while acquiring a breadth and depth 
of knowledge of the organization as a result of holding a position which required extensive cross-business 
needs assessment, consulting and communication. 
Applying the distinction provided in Matter of Penner, the beneficiary's knowledge is not needed, or in fact 
being used, in the U.S. entity solely for the petitioner's production of a product or provision of a service, in 
that she is not simply performing a general human resources function See id. Nor is the beneficiary deemed 
to have specialized knowledge solely because of her job responsibilities, which include designing surveys and 
courses, and other materials used in training and assessment of the petitioner's employees and overall training 
needs. Rather, it is the beneficiary's advanced knowledge of the petitioner's Global Performance Management 
processes and related global learning and development strategies, and the significance of these processes to 
the company's current efforts to implement an integrated training plan across all of its business units on a 
worldwide basis which constitutes the claimed specialized knowledge. The evidence submitted is sufficient to 
establish that the beneficiary's specific knowledge is needed to play a key leadership role in the 
standardization and global integration of the company's employee development programs. The record 
therefore demonstrates that the beneficiary is clearly "employed primarily for [her] ability to carry out a key 
process . . . which is important [and] essential to the business' operation." Id. 
Additionally, consistent with legislative history and prior case law, the beneficiary is considered a "key" 
employee of both the foreign and U.S. entities. The statutory definition of specialized knowledge requires the 
LIN 05 034 5 1 802 
Page 10 
AAO to make comparisons in order to determine what constitutes specialized knowledge. 
 The term 
"specialized knowledge" is not an absolute concept and cannot be clearly defined. 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 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 petitionihg company that is "of crucial importance." 
Webster's 11 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 economic 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. f 
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). The decision noted that the 1970 House Report, H.R. 
No. 91-851, stated that the number of admissions under the L-1 classification "will not be large" and that 
"[tlhe class of persons eligible for such nonimmigrant visas is narrowly drawn and will be carellly regulated 
by the Immigration and Naturalization Service." Id. at 5 1. The decision noted that the House Report was 
silent on the subject of specialized knowledge, but that during the course of the sub-committee hearings on the 
bill, the Chairman specifically questioned witnesses on the level of skill necessary to qualify under the 
proposed "L" category. In response to the Chairman's questions, 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 of Penner, id. 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 in Matter of Penner that an expansive 
reading of the specialized knowledge provision, such that it would include skilled workers and technicians, is 
not warranted. The Commissioner ekp&ized that the specialized knowledge worker classification was not 
intended for "all employees with any level of specialized knowledge." Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 53. 
Or, as noted in Matter of Colley, "[mlost employees today are specialists and have been trained and given 
specialized knowledge. However, in view of the House Report, it can not be concluded that all employees 
with specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are eligible for classification as 
intracompany transferees." 18 I&N Dec. at 1 19. According to Matter of Penner, "[sluch a conclusion would 
permit extremely large numbers of persons to qualify for the 'L-1 ' visa" rather than the "key personnel" that 
Congress specifically intended. 18 I&N Dec. at 53; see also, 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15 (concluding that 
Congress did not intend for the specialized knowledge capacity to extend to all employees with specialized 
knowledge, but rather to "key personnel" and "executives.") 
It is insufficient to simply state that the beneficiary in the present matter possesses specialized knowledge as a 
result of developing andlor making significant contributions to the development of company processes. Here, 
the petitioner demonstrated the beneficiary's "key" position through supplemental evidence, particularly the 
LIN 05 034 5 1 802 
Page 11 
summary of the beneficiary's specific project experience, and the testimony of six managerial and executive 
staff, submitted on appeal, which clarify the scope of the beneficiary's knowledge an the value of her 
contributions to the organization. The submitted evidence demonstrates that the beneficiary joined the foreign 
entity with a combination of professional skills in training and development and employee communications 
not already found within the organization, and during a time in which such skills were needed to efficiently 
develop, implement and communicate new employee development programs across all areas of a large, 
complex organization. These circumstances resulted in the beneficiary receiving unique assignments and 
opportunities within the foreign entity, developing relationships and knowledge across business units that 
were previously uncommon within the company's human resources function, and, most notably, the 
beneficiary's development of strategies and methods for the Canadian which are being adopted by the U.S. 
organization and implemented globally. 
On appeal, the beneficiary's current manager emphasizes her status as a key member of a team organized to 
implement a Personal Leadership Effectiveness Training Program, a $500,000 project which targets 6,000 
employees worldwide; the beneficiary's role as a project manager in a $750,000 project to implement an 
enterprise wide learning management system, for which she will represent Human Resources functions on a 
company-wide basis; and finally, the beneficiary's role in expanding the company's leadership development, 
competency assessment and other talent development programs across the company's global organization, an 
ongoing $2 million investment. The beneficiary's manager emphasizes that she is one of three individuals in a 
global organization of 21,500 employees who is qualified to execute the program. Furthermore, in her role 
with the foreign entity, the beneficiary held key assignments in addition to her role in implementing the 
Global Performance Management system, including responsibility for providing peer coaching to other 
members of the Canadian human resources team, receiving intensive training in the company's business 
framework not provided to any other human resources employee, and serving as a consultant to more than 70 
managers for training and development issues. 
The combination of the beneficiary's professional training and experience, her specialized knowledge of the 
petitioner's employee training and development requirements, the application of her knowledge to the 
development of key processes for the company, and her special assignments abroad and in the United States, 
establishes the beneficiary as a key employee with "unique" knowledge. The petitioner has established that 
the beneficiary has special or advanced knowledge compared to that of the petitioner's current employees, and 
is more valuable to the operations of the foreign and U.S. entities than an average employee. 
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 demonstrated that the beneficiary may be 
considered a member of the "narrowly drawn" class of individuals possessing specialized knowledge. See 
1756, Znc. v. Attorney General, supra at 16. The application of the beneficiary's knowledge to the 
development and integration of new company processes in the global training and development function, as 
well as her position as "key personnel," qualifies her as possessing knowledge that is specialized. 
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the director will be withdrawn and the petition approved. 
LIN 05 034 5 1 802 
Page 12 
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. 5 136 1. The petitioner has sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.