Case Information

*1 Before S MITH , G ARZA , and P RADO , Circuit ment that Citizen and Immigration Services

Judges. (“CIS”) properly denied its petition on behalf of twenty meat-specialists, employed at an af-

P ER C URIAM : ^[*] filiated restaurant in Brazil, for “L-1B” visas

for temporary transfer to its newly-opened At- Boi Na Braza Atlanta LLC appeals a judg- lanta franchise. A denial by the CIS of a visa application may be overturned only if the plaintiff demonstrates that the ruling was “arbi- ^[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or determined that this opinion should not be pub- otherwise not in accordance with law.” Nat’l lished and is not precedent except under the limited Hand Tool Corp. v. Pasquarell , 889 F.2d circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. *2 1472, 1475 (5th Cir. 1989). of its meat-specialist transferees. In particular,

the agency could rationally have concluded Agency action is arbitrary or capricious that plaintiff did not provide the CIS with suf- “only when it is so implausible that it could not ficient information about the beneficiaries’ be ascribed to a difference in view or the skills and abilities, nor did it demonstrate that product of agency expertise.” Wilson v. Unit- the beneficiaries’ knowledge of Brazilian ed States Dep’t of Agric. , 991 F.2d 1211, cooking was sufficiently specialized to merit 1215 (5th Cir. 1993). The decision need only L-1B status.

have a rational basis, and the reviewing court

need not have come to the same conclusion. For the above reasons, and for the reasons Id. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving stated by the district court in its excellent opin- eligibility. Nat’l Hand Tool , 889 F.2d at ion, we AFFIRM.

1475. ^[1]

To establish eligibility for an “L-1B,” or

non-immigrant intra-company transferee visa,

the transferee must serve his employer, or a

subsidiary or affiliate thereof, in a capacity that

is “managerial, executive, or involves spe-

cialized knowledge.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101-

(a)(15)(L). The issue before the CIS was

whether the meat-specialists employed by

plaintiff’s parent company possess “specialized

knowledge” as defined in the statute, and the

applicable regulations, adjudicatory decisions,

and memoranda of the agency.

We agree with the district court that we

need not resolve the issue whether Chevron

deference applies to agency decisions respect-

ing L-1B visa applications, because even under

the less deferential Skidmore standard, the

agency’s decision plainly passes muster. After

an independent review of the briefs and the

record, we agree that CIS did not abuse its

discretion or act in an arbitrary or capricious

manner by concluding that plaintiff had failed

to show “specialized knowledge” on the part

[1] See also 8 U.S.C. § 1361 (“Whenever any person makes application for a visa . . . the burden of proof shall be upon such person to establish that he is eligible to receive such visa”). 2