dismissed L-1A Case: Marketing Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe: 8187559 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for an L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 28, 2020 
The Petitioner uses its social content aggregation platform to provide marketing technology services 
to its clients. It seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its "Enterprise Business Development 
Lead" under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity or in a position requiring specialized knowledge for at least one year during the three years 
prior to filing this petition; and (2) the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the intended services in the 
United States. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal because 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, as claimed. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the Beneficiary's 
qualifications to perform the intended services in the United States. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which 
is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position requiring 
specialized knowledge for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1). 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 or executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(1)(3)(ii). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The foreign entity, parent to the Petitioner, uses its proprietary "User-Generated Content" ("UGC") 
marketing technology and "social content aggregation and publishing platform" to offer solutions to 
its enterprise business clients. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary used the specialized 
knowledge he gained during his employment as the foreign entity's business development executive 
for the Europe, Middle East, and Africa region ("EMEA") to "single-handedly" create an approach 
and strategy for enterprise business development. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's 
specialized knowledge can only be gained through work experience within its organization, explaining 
that it operates within a narrow business "niche" that includes "only a handful" of competitors that 
offer a similar product. The Petitioner also emphasizes the "uniqueness" of the technology and 
solution it offers to its enterprise business clients, claiming that its product is "significantly stronger" 
than that of its competitors. The Petitioner attributes the Beneficiary's the creation of an enterprise 
business development strategy and team to the "successful pivot" of the company's product into the 
enterprise market. 
The Petitioner points out that in the course of his employment abroad, the Beneficiary was selected as 
one of only three employees globally to receive leadership training and the only employee to receive 
enterprise business development training, which were delivered online through modules that were 
customized for the foreign entity's business model. The Petitioner highlights the "significant amount 
of functional knowledge and advanced skills" the Beneficiary gained and the "essential" role he 
assumed on a team tasked with overseeing the EMEA region's business development activities. The 
Petitioner also points to the Beneficiary's "specialized" and "advanced understanding of UGC 
marketing" knowledge," his "expertise of global Enterprise organizations and their approach to the 
developing content marketing landscape," and his "deep understanding" of the company's clients as 
proof that the Beneficiary acquired and used specialized knowledge, which enabled him to 
successfully carry out his assigned job duties during his employment with the foreign entity. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE CAP A CITY 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity, as claimed. 
As a threshold issue, we must determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. If the evidence is insufficient to establish that he possesses 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's past and intended future 
employment involve specialized knowledge. 1 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge ifhe or she has: (1) a "special" knowledge of 
the company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" level of 
knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 214( c )(2)(B) of the Act. A 
petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition. 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneficiary's 
knowledge is "special" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's 
knowledge against that of others. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge, the petitioner 
ordinarily must demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the 
particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. The ultimate question 
is whether the petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is special or advanced, and that the beneficiary's position 
requires such knowledge. 
Special knowledge concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its 
application in international markets. To establish that a beneficiary has special knowledge, the 
petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or 
uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular 
industry. 
Because "advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, 
the petitioning entity may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge of or 
an expertise in the organization's processes and procedures that is greatly developed or further along 
in progress, complexity, and understanding in comparison to other workers in the employer's 
operations. Such advanced knowledge must be supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart 
from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and type 
of evidence which establishes whether or not the beneficiary actually possesses specialized 
knowledge. We cannot make a factual determination regarding a given beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of its products 
and services or processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field involved, and the 
nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how such knowledge is 
typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the individual beneficiary gained 
such knowledge. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner discussed the Beneficiary's key role as creator of the foreign 
organization's enterprise business development strategy and team, claiming that as a result of the 
Beneficiary's contributions the foreign entity was able to "significantly enhance[]" its competitiveness 
in the international market. The Petitioner listed and described the distinguishing features of its 
product, linking the release of each feature to a marketing strategy that the Beneficiary developed in 
the course of his tenure with the foreign entity. That said, the Petitioner credited the "product team," 
rather than the Beneficiary, with product development and technological optimization, claiming that 
the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge was "in the Content Marketing arena" and was directly 
associated with the UGC and "expertise of global Enterprise organizations and their developing 
content marketing landscape." The Petitioner did not explain how the Beneficiary's knowledge of its 
product or that of other enterprise organizations is specialized. 
The Petitioner also highlighted the Beneficiary's creation of the enterprise business development 
strategy and a "best practices" approach for conveying the company's "technical expertise and unique 
value proposition," claiming that these factors resulted in an increase in enterprise customers. 
3 
However, because the Petitioner did not describe either the strategy or the "best practices" approach, 
it is unclear whether specialized knowledge played a role in their creation. Furthermore, the Petitioner 
did not explain how the Beneficiary's knowledge is "special" compared to others who are similarly 
employed in the industry, nor did the Petitioner identify the company's processes and procedures in 
which the Beneficiary's knowledge is "advanced" in comparison to others within the same 
organization. Likewise, although the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary "developed an advanced 
amount of specialized knowledge about [the company] as a global organization" and "created and 
implemented a new methodology" for incorporating the best practices approach to promote the 
company's product at various marketing events, these vague references to the Beneficiary's 
knowledge of the "global organization" and "new methodology" provide no substantive insight about 
his specific knowledge. Thus, it is unclear how the Beneficiary's understanding of the employing 
organization and its business components translates into "special" knowledge of the employer's 
products or services or "advanced" knowledge of its processes and procedures. 
Further, the Petitioner did not explain how the Beneficiary acquired the knowledge that is claimed to 
be specialized. Although the Petitioner stated that the foreign entity invested in an online training 
program, emphasizing that the Beneficiary was one of only three employees who was selected for the 
leadership training and was the only employee who was selected for the enterprise business 
development training, such training did not commenced until "[ s ]pring of 2017," approximately seven 
months prior to the date the Beneficiary's employment terminated, and no information was provided 
about the date of completion of the said training. Accordingly, even if the Petitioner were to 
demonstrate that the training resulted in the Beneficiary's acquisition of specialized knowledge, it 
would have been factually impossible for the Beneficiary to have completed the training and then used 
the knowledge gained from the training to fill a position requiring specialized knowledge for at least 
one year prior to the date his employment terminated in October 2017. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's knowledge is both "special" and "advanced" 
and cites to a number of previously issued USCIS policy memoranda, which have since been rescinded 
and superseded by USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-JB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 
2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. The Petitioner highlights the Beneficiary's 
2.5 years of employment with the foreign entity and his "single-handed[]" creation of an enterprise 
business development approach and strategy to support this claim. However, as noted earlier, the 
Petitioner does not describe either the strategy or the approach, nor does it establish that specialized 
knowledge was required to create them. Likewise, despite the Petitioner's reference to the 
Beneficiary's "particularly high degree of business acumen," the lack of information about the actual 
knowledge this "high degree of business acumen" involves precludes a determination that "high 
acumen" is synonymous a level of knowledge that would be deemed as specialized. 
Moreover, even if the Petitioner were to establish that a "particularly high degree of business acumen" 
equates to specialized knowledge, it is unclear when the claimed level of knowledge was achieved. 
Rather than specifying a definitive path for gaining specialized knowledge, the Petitioner only broadly 
states that the knowledge was obtained through "dedicated coaching from [the foreign entity's] 
executives and also on-the-job during [the Beneficiary's] tenure" with the foreign organization. These 
vague statements fail to identify a progression in the Beneficiary's knowledge from the time he 
commenced his employment with the foreign entity up to the point when the specialized knowledge 
was purportedly attained. Although the Petitioner is correct in stating that neither the statute nor 
4 
regulations have a requirement for formal or other training in order to attain specialized knowledge, 
in this instance the Petitioner's specifically discussed the Beneficiary's formal online training, 
highlighting its cost and pointing out that the training was offered exclusively to only a few of its 
employees. As such, it is reasonable to assume that the Petitioner relied on the Beneficiary's training 
to support the claim that the Beneficiary acquired specialized knowledge. As noted earlier, however, 
based on the commencement date of the training and the termination date the Beneficiary's 
employment, any knowledge gained from the training could not have been used for at least one year 
in the course of the Beneficiary's foreign employment and thus would not serve as evidence that the 
Beneficiary held a position that required specialized knowledge for at least one year during his 
employment abroad with the foreign entity. 
Further, the Petitioner's supporting statements and appeal brief reference the Beneficiary's "deep 
knowledge and understanding" of the foreign entity's "use cases and case studies." However, it 
provides no description of the knowledge or information about the cases and studies to explain how 
the Beneficiary's knowledge is either "special" or "advanced." The Petitioner also claims that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is special because it includes an understanding of how the foreign entity's 
UGC platform "integrates with other technologies in the digital marketing ecosystem." However, the 
Petitioner did not distinguish the Beneficiary's knowledge as distinct or uncommon compared to 
knowledge that is generally found within the same industry. Likewise, claiming that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge of the foreign entity's "marketing strategies, process, and systems" is advanced is not 
sufficient without a description of the strategies, processes, or systems and an explanation of how the 
knowledge is more developed in progress or complexity in comparison to the knowledge of other 
employees within the foreign entity. Further, the Petitioner's claim that the foreign entity had 
"measurable success" as a result of its use of methodology is not in contention. That said, a 
methodology's "measurable success" is not necessarily proof that specialized knowledge was required 
for its development, particularly when the Petitioner neither describes the methodology nor offers 
information about the knowledge one must possess to create it. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a 
specialized knowledge employee consistent with the memorandum cited above. Id. However, the 
Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge 
that is either special or advanced. While the Beneficiary may be filling a role that is beneficial to the 
Petitioner's competitiveness in the marketplace, this characteristic alone is not probative of his 
specialized knowledge. As noted in the memorandum, the "characteristics" listed by the Petitioner 
are only "factors that USCIS may consider when determining whether a beneficiary's knowledge is 
specialized." Id. The memorandum emphasizes that "ultimately, it is the weight and type of evidence 
that establishes whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge." Id. at 13. In light of the 
evidentiary deficiencies described above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
acquired specialized knowledge and was employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5