dismissed L-1B Case: Accounting

MATTER OF K- P.A. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a certified public accounting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"Assistant Manager (Level 3), Assurance and Advisory Services" under the L-1 B nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The L-lB classification allows a corporation or 
other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee with 
"specialized knowledge" to work temporarily in the United States. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he was 
employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director misapplied guidance set forth in a 2015 United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) policy memorandum regarding the adjudication of L-1 B petitions. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the 
criteria outlined in section 10l(a)(l5)(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 1 continuous year within the 3 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. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the statutory definition of 
specialized knowledge: 
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 
(b)(6)
Matter of K- P.A. 
knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets or has an 
advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures ofthe company. 
Furthermore , the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge as: 
[S]pecial 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) requires that an individual L-IB petition filed on Form 
1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, be accompanied by evidence that the beneficiary's prior 
year of employment abroad was in a position that was managerial , executive or involved specialized 
knowledge , evidence that the beneficiary's prior education , training and employment qualifies 
him/her to perform the intended services in the United States, and a detailed description of the 
services to be performed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States . 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A .SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE CAPACITY . 
The issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he has been employed abroad and will be employed in the 
United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner is a certified public accounting firm claiming 12 employees and gross income of over 
$2.6 million at the time of filing. In a supporting statement signed by a partner, the 
Petitioner stated that it "is one of the leading international accounting firms for Generally Accepted 
Accounting Principles ('GAAP') conversions" and explained that its business model is based, in 
part, on assisting certain Indian companies with U.S. subsidiaries to comply with new Indian 
Accounting Standards (Ind-AS) with a mandatory compliance date of April 1, 2016. 
stated that the Petitioner will provide its clients with qualified personnel who are trained in the use 
of its firm's proprietary accounting conversion tool, ' and who have an in-depth 
understanding of various types of GAAP conversions. 
He further explained that the company uses an onsite and offshore delivery model, with back end 
work taking place in and onsite teams working at client locations in the United States. The 
Petitioner stated that both offsite and onsite employees are "qualified in multiple jurisdictions in 
addition to being trained in [the Petitioner's] proprietary methodologies and processes. " 
stated that its "lnd-AS service " involves converting US GAAP to Ind-AS , providing 
GAAP analysis using the ' preparing financial statements within GAAP criteria, 
documenting audit evidence within lnd-AS parameters, and interacting with auditors to provide the 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of K- P.A. 
client with an analysis of the differences between the US GAAP, Indian GAAP, and Ind-AS 
standards and the effects of those differences on the client's financial statements. 
In his letter, provided a brief background explaining India's implementation of Ind­
AS as its new standard for financial reporting, noting that the change was made to converge Indian 
Accounting Standards and principles, currently based on GAAP standards, with the internationally­
accepted International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). He explained that over 4250 Indian 
corporations were mandated to comply with the new rules beginning on April 1, 2016. 
also provided an explanation of how the Petitioner will use its tool, which is 
"powered by MicroSoft Excel" to input U.S. or Indian GAAP financial statements and other key 
financial data to produce Ind-AS Financial Statements. 
emphasized that the foreign entity's employees, because of their experience with 
cross-border accounting issues, possess knowledge of U.S. and Indian accounting standards that 
"goes much deeper than that of peers at other companies" \vho do not deal with the specialized 
processes of accounting conversions. He explained that the Petitioner and its Indian affiliate have a 
team of 90 people working in various practice areas, including an Ind-AS conversion practice with 
45 members (15 managers, 5 associates, and 25 interns). indicated that almost all of 
these employees are trained on the tool and have been with the firm for 1 to 10 years. 
He stated "[t]here is a distinction between regular employees and those that have acquired the 
specialized 
knowledge required to perform the Ind-AS job duties." 
letter also included a graphical depiction of the "Ind-AS Specialized Team" 
identifying a total of 29, not 45, employees. The chart shows that 24 employees were trained and 
tested on Ind-AS, and 14 were selected for Ind-AS training in advanced modules which enables them 
to work at client locations using the tool. 
Finally, addressed the Beneficiary's qualifications, noting that he has completed the 
Ind-AS training module, and "has gained specialized knowledge of the proprietary aspects of our 
international accounting operations and our established processes and methodologies.'' 
The Petitioner provided an employment letter from the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The letter 
stated that the Beneficiary is employed in the position of "Assistant Manager - Level 3"and has 
worked for the foreign entity since February 2012.
1 
It included a list of Beneficiary's job duties, 
which include: planning and developing audit programs based on a risk assessment of the client's 
accounting system; performing preliminary analytical procedures on client's financial documents; 
preparing financial statements and accounting information and reports for senior staff; finalizing and 
consolidating accounts according to U.S. GAAP; converting financial statements from U.S. GAAP 
1 
On the L Classification Supplement to Form 1-129, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary commenced employment 
with the foreign entity in August 2008, and the Petitioner stated in its letter that he joined the foreign entity as an intern 
at this time. The Petitioner also submitted copies of the Beneficiary's pay statements, which indicate his "Date of 
joining" as May 17,2013. · 
3 
(b)(6)
}.,fatter of K- P.A. 
to IndAS using software module; ensuring compliance with Indian Companies Act 
reporting requirements for Indian GAAP assignments; preparing communications for review by 
management; ensuring compliance with laws and regulations affecting the client's business; and 
preparing audit work papers and memos, including findings and recommendations for improvement 
in internal controls. 
The Petitioner also provided the Beneficiary's education credentials, including a certificate from 
showing that the Beneficiary passed the tina! 
examination in November 2014 and the Beneficiary's bachelor of commerce degree awarded in 
January 2012 from the 
The Director reviewed the Petitioner's submissions and issued a request for evidence (RFE). The 
Director instructed the Petitioner to provide, in part, letters from the U.S. and foreign entities 
describing the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge job duties, explaining how the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is special or advanced, how the required knowledge compares to others within the same 
employer and within the same industry, and what is the minimum time and training required to 
obtain such knowledge. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a statement from the Beneticiary's 
supervisor abroad, representing the Petitioner's foreign affiliate. explained that the 
Petitioner and its affiliate fall into a unique group of accounting firms that have the ability to 
perform audits for Indian companies and their U.S. subsidiary counterparts. She claimed that 
immediately following the promulgation of a new rule on February 16, 2015, which mandated that 
all multinational companies in India with a minimum net worth of $80 million would be subject to 
Ind-AS, the foreign entity developed a business model targeting those clients who \Vould be required 
to comply with the mandate. 
stated that the accounting firm created a nevv' business model, which included training 
"an 'elite' short list of qualified professionals" on the and its application to ensure Ind­
AS compliance, claiming that specialized knowledge would .be required in order to achieve this goal. 
She further claimed that the Beneficiary gained specialized knowledge abroad when he learned to 
use the foreign entity's proprietary accounting conversion soft\vare tool. In addition, 
noted that the "Beneficiary also gained knowledge of the complexities of our 
international auditing operations and our established processes and methodologies." She listed the 
third-party audit tools the company uses, claiming that such use is part of the accounting firm's 
"processes and methodologies," and added that the auditing task requires an in-depth understanding 
of the client company, which the Beneficiary is claimed to possess and which he is claimed to have 
used to direct an audit team and develop specific audit programs to suit individual client needs. 
also stated that the Beneficiary completed a 2-day Continuing Professional Education 
(CPE) course on the Ind-AS mandate and passed an exam on Ind-AS after attending a 3-day training 
session on the subject. She asserted that the duration of these courses is irrelevant and focused on 
the Beneficiary's "capacity to grasp and implement a very complex set of international accounting 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ~fK- P.A. 
rules based on a foundational understanding of the tield of accounting and auditing." 
stated that "[ m ]ost of the team members selected have at least 8-12 years of foundational experience 
followed by at least 20 hours of continuing professional training in this niche area." 
The Petitioner's response also included supporting evidence, including an user guide, a 
training manual on Ind-AS conversion outlining differences between Ind-AS and other types of 
accounting standards, evidence of the Beneficiary's completion of the company's 3-day (9 hour) 
Ind-AS training, the Beneficiary's post-training exam results, and evidence of the Beneficiary's 
completion of a 2-day (12 hour) CPE course provided by the In 
addition, the Petitioner provided its own statement in which it claimed that its employees use 
methodologies that are specific to its organization in order to "execut[ e] time sensitive 
engagements." The Petitioner expressed the urgency of having its employees learn the Ind-AS 
accounting system "in a short span of time" so that they can focus on the new system's practical 
applicability and compliance aspects and identify key ditierences between lnd-AS and the Indian 
and U.S. GAAPs. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary allocated 45 hours to reading about 
the new accounting system, 35 hours preparing an analysis and technical memorandum on the 
system, 8 hours reviewing the analysis and memo, and 12 hours on "[i]nternal discussions," for a 
total of 100 hours. 
The Petitioner also reiterated information previously provided by its foreign affiliate and provided a 
percentage breakdown of the job duties the Beneficiary would perform in the United States. 
Specifically, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would allocate 65% of his time to Ind-AS 
conversion, which would involve conducting analysis of Ind-AS, Indian GAAP, and U.S. GAAP 
standards and preparing "the comparative framework for differences" among the three. The 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary 
would use the tool for the analysis portion or 
the conversion; he would record and summarize the work done for the conversion; and he would 
communicate those results to the client. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would allocate 
25% of his time to "US GAAP Assurance Services," and the remaining 10% of the his time on 
managing and coordinating, which would involve "[ e ]nsuring timely completion of assurance 
engagements"; "[p]reparing billing statements"; and "[m]entoring and developing team members." 
The Petitioner provided a list of 21 client companies the Beneficiary is expected to work with in the 
United States, and a list of his 28 previous client assignments. The Petitioner further claimed that 
the Beneficiary has the "requisite proprietary training and knowledge of our accounting and GAAP 
conversion methodologies," and stated that "[t]he core advanced level knowledge required for the 
position has been accumulated in this resource in a very short span of time .... " The Petitioner 
explained that the Beneficiary attained an advanced level of knowledge through on-the-job 
experience with the foreign employer, its proprietary tool, and its internal Ind-AS 
training. 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to 
establish that the Beneficiary's knowledge of the foreign entity's processes and procedures is 
advanced in comparison to other company employees or that it can be differentiated from that held 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of K- P.A. 
by similarly placed employees at other companies. The Director further pointed out that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge must be distinguished and noteworthy in order to qualify as "special 
knowledge." She found , however, that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
possesses knowledge that could not be easily imparted to others within the Petitioner's organization 
or within the industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's conclusion, asserting that the Beneficiary ' s 
knowledge of the company's proprietary tool as well as individual clients' confidential 
accounting procedures and tax treatments, requires a detailed understanding of the clients' respective 
businesses and can only be gained through experience with processes and procedures that are 
specific to individual clients and not common throughout the industry or shared throughout the 
Petitioner's organization. The Petitioner further contends that the Director's decision constitutes a 
misapplication of US CIS' 2015 L-1 B policy memorandum. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review, we agree with the Director ' s decision. The record does not establish that the 
Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been employed abroad or would be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity as defined at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
The statutory definition of specialized knowledge at Section 214( c )(2)(B) of the Act is comprised of 
two equal but distinct subparts. First, an individual is considered to be employed in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge if that person "has a special knowledge of the company product 
and its application in international markets ." Second, an individual is considered to be serving in a 
capacity involving specialized knowledge if that person "has an advanced level of knowledge of 
processes and procedures of the company ." See also 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(l)(l)(ii)(D). A petitioner may 
establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy 
either prong of the definition. 
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 actuall y possesses specialized 
knowledge. USCIS cannot make a factual determination regarding a 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 
beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
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 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of K- P.A. 
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 advanced or special, and that the 
beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner's claims are based on the first and second prongs of the statutory 
definition, asserting that the Beneficiary has both special knowledge of the company's services and 
their application in international markets and that he has an advanced level of knowledge of the 
company's processes and procedures. 
A. Special Knowledge 
Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the employing organization's products or 
services and its application in international markets, the Petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidence that the Beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to the 
knowledge held by similarly employed workers in the particular industry. 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that its firm has the unique ability to ensure Ind-AS compliance for 
multinational Indian clients with U.S. subsidiaries. It claims that it has this ability is a result of 
employees like the Beneficiary who have an understanding of firm's proprietary tools 
and knowledge of new Ind-AS accounting standard, which applies to a subset of multinational 
Indian corporations. The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge is 
comprised of four key components - his knowledge of the proprietary tool, Ind-AS 
conversions, the firm 's multinational capabilities, and his client-specific knowledge. 
Although the Petitioner stressed the importance of its proprietary tool, the and the 
Beneficiary's knowledge in the use of this tool to convert the employer's clients' financial 
statements from the Indian or U.S. GAAP standard to the new Indian Ind-AS standard, the Petitioner 
has not established that the Beneficiary's knowledge of is either distinct or uncommon 
as compared to similarly employed workers within the industry. The current statutory and 
regulatory definitions of "specialized knowledge" do not include a requirement that a beneficiary's 
knowledge be proprietary. However, a petitioner might satisfy the current standard based on a 
beneficiary's proprietary knowledge, as long as the petitioner 
demonstrates that the knowledge is 
either "special" or "advanced." By itself, simply claiming that knowledge is proprietary will not 
satisfy the statutory standard. 
The Petitioner submitted a training manual for its Microsoft Excel-based tool, but did 
( not offer information about the amount or type of training required for its employees to use the tool, 
or any evidence that the Beneficiary himself received formal classroom or on-the-job training in its 
use. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative , and credible evidence. See 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Without this information, we cannot 
determine that the knowledge needed to use the tool could not be readily transferred to an 
experienced auditor in a short period of time. Further, the Petitioner has not claimed that the use of 
..., 
}vfatter of K- P.A. 
such conversion tools is uncommon within the industry or that other entities do not have similar 
conversion capabilities. 
The Petitioner also stressed the importance of the Beneficiary's Ind-AS training, which it claimed 
was necessary to ensure Ind-AS compliance for its Indian clients with U.S. counterparts. The 
Beneficiary completed a 2-day CPE course on the Ind-AS mandate and passed an exam on Ind-AS 
after attending the corresponding 3-day training session offered by the foreign employer. However, 
there is no evidence to show that the knowledge gained during these courses was specialized or 
advanced as compared to others within the same employer or with respect to others similarly 
employed within the industry. 
Further, by the Petitioner's own admission, the know·ledge of Ind-AS that the Beneficiary acquired 
during the 2-day CPE course and the 3-day company training, took place \Vithin "a very short span 
of time." The record shows that the Beneficiary's total formal training time was 21 hours, while the 
Petitioner states he spent another 100 hours focused on learning Ind-AS, more than half of which 
was spent reading the new law and discussing it internally. While the Petitioner seems to contend 
that acquiring such knowledge within a short timeframe somehow supports the notion that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is specialized, it is unclear why, if knowledge of Ind-AS can be acquired 
through two brief training courses, it cannot be easily transferred to someone· who is similarly 
employed within the industry or to someone whom the Petitioner currently employs in the United 
States. The very existence of a CPE course on the Ind-AS mandate indicates that. the course \Vas 
made available to individuals other than just those employed by the foreign entity, which is 
reasonable given that such compliance is mandatory for all multinational firms who fit specific 
criteria, not just to clients of the foreign entity. 
Moreover, the very fact that the Beneficiary took the CPE course and the Ind-AS training in October 
2015 and January 2016, respectively, indicates that even if knowledge oflnd-AS and the conversion 
process were sufficient to deem the Beneficiary's position abroad as specialized, the Beneficiary 
would not have had the requisite 1 year of employment in a specialized knowledge capacity given 
that both training sessions took place less than 1 year prior to the date the instant petition was tiled. 
Regardless, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that knowledge of the 
Ind-AS mandate contributes to the Beneficiary having specialized knowledge. 
In addition, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has "knowledge of the complexities of our 
international auditing operations and our established processes and methodologies." However, this 
claim is largely unsupported, as the Petitioner does not specifically identify any of its processes or 
methodologies or provide a discussion of any distinguishing characteristics to separate its processes 
and methodologies as uncommon or noteworthy when compared to those used industry-wide. While 
the Petitioner partly relies on the Beneficiary's on-the-job training to support the claim that his 
knowledge is specialized, the Petitioner does not provide evidence, such as the Beneficiary's 
detailed resume or other supporting documentation, to show when or how the Beneficiary gained the 
knowledge or what progressive experience the Beneficiary had that led up to his acquisition of the 
claimed specialized knowledge. Rather, the Petitioner places great emphasis on its proprietary 
8 
Matter of K- P.A. 
software conversion tool and claims that the Beneficiary's knowledge "goes much deeper than that 
of peers at other accounting firms . . . who may not be as familiar with the more specialized 
processes of accounting conversion for Indian multinationals." The Petitioner has also claimed 
"there are very few Indian [a]ccounting [t]irms with the capacity to audit books of the U.S. 
[ s ]ubsidiaries of their Indian [ c ]lients." 
However, the Petitioner does not claim or provide evidence to establish that knowledge of Ind-AS 
conversion is uncommon among international accounting firms, nor has it supported its claims that 
few firms are able to perform audits of U.S. companies. As stated above, the Ind-AS mandate 
applies to all entities that fit a specific set of criteria. There is no indication that the Petitioner's 
clients are the only ones to whom the Ind-AS standard applies. It therefore stands to reason that any 
accounting firm whose clients, like those of the Petitioner, tit the same criteria must also have 
employees who possess similar knowledge of Ind-AS conversion as that possessed by the 
Beneficiary and the foreign entity's other employees. The Petitioner has not established that 
knowledge of the company's processes or cross-border capabilities qualities as special knowledge. 
Further, while the Petitioner lists various auditing tools the Beneficiary uses in the course of his 
work and states that the Beneficiary "had developed specific audit programs that suit the risk profile 
of the Indian multinational auditee clients," the Petitioner does not establish that the use of the listed 
tools to develop "specific audit programs" to fit client needs is somehow distinct or uncommon 
throughout the accounting industry. On appeal, the Petitioner particularly emphasizes the 
Beneficiary's client-specific knowledge as a source of specialized knowledge. However, a 
comparison of the list of 21 client companies that the Beneficiary is expected to work with in the 
United States with the list of 28 companies that the Beneficiary worked with during the course of his 
previous assignments shows. that only six entities are common to both lists, thereby indicating that 
approximately 71% of the U.S. clients assigned to the Beneficiary in his proposed position would 
not be companies with which the Beneficiary has worked in the past. Thus, given that most of the 
subject companies that would be part of the Beneficiary's proposed assignment in the United States 
would be new to the Beneficiary, the Petitioner has not supported its claim that the Beneficiary has 
in-depth client-specific knowledge that is required for him to successfully carry out his assigned job 
duties. 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
Next, we will address the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge. Because 
"advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, the 
petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge of or 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. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of K- P.A. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner focuses on its process for converting its clients ' financial 
statements from GAAP standards to the new Jnd-AS standard. Thy Petitioner claims that its 
capability to successfully meet its clients' conversion needs is due in large part to its "elite" team of 
employees, which include.s the Beneficiary. The Petitioner also provided a diagram in its initial 
supporting statement indicating that of its 29 employees who \Vork on Jnd-AS, only 14 were selected 
for training in Ind-AS advanced modules , completion of which is required to work at a client site 
using the tool. However, the Petitioner did not define or document these advanced 
modules or specify what criteria an employee must meet in order to qualify for the selection. In fact, 
the Petitioner does not expressly state that the Beneficiary was among those selected for the 
advanced 
training or provitle evidence of his completion of such training. We further note that in the 
same supporting statement, the Petitioner stated that of its "team of over 90 people" 45 people, rather 
than 29, are involved in the Ind-AS conversion practice. As indicated earlier in this decision, the "45 
members" includes 15 managers, 5 associates, and 25 interns. The Petitioner does not provide 
evidence to reconcile these two seemingly inconsistent claims regarding the size and makeup of its 
lnd-AS team with independent , objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. See, Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Further, in reviewing the organizational chart that the Petitioner provided in response to the RFE and 
in the appeal brief, we note that the Petitioner listed ten individuals that comprise the group of 
employees who are part of an Ind-AS conversion practice team. One of the firm's partners, who 
specializes in audit and assurance, is depicted as head of the group, followed by the practice director, 
who signed the foreign entity's RFE response statement. The remainder of the group is comprised 
of two managers, four assistant managers (including the Beneficiar y), and two interns. The 
Petitioner did not clarify how, if at all, the knowledge of lnd-AS and/or the differs 
among members of this conversion practice team. For this reason as well, it is unclear whether the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is more developed or further along than that of those employees whose 
respective positions within the team's organizational hierarchy are below that of the Beneficiary. 
While the Petitioner places great emphasis on the Beneficiary's high rank with respect to others who 
took the post Ind-AS training exam, pointing out that the Beneficiary achieved the highest score, the 
Petitioner does not explain how this achievement elevates the Beneficiary's knowledge to an 
advanced level. In general, the evidence of record does not establish that the Beneficiary has 
knowledge of specific processes and procedures that is not commonl y found in the relevant industry 
and is greatly developed or further along in progress , complexity and understanding as compared to 
employees within the Petitioner ' s accounting firm. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary possesses various 
characteristics 
of a worker with qualifying specialized knowledge as set forth in USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-
0111, L-IB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https ://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy­
memoranda .. However , for the reasons discussed above, 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 may be beneficial to the Petitioner ' s 
competitiveness in the marketplace , this characteristic alone is not probative of his speciali zed 
knowledge. As noted in the memorandum, the "characteristics " listed by the Petitioner are only 
10 
Matter of K- P.A. 
"factors that USCIS may consider when determining whether a beneficiary's knowledge is 
specialized" and such factors must be supported by evidence. Supra at 8. The memorandum 
emphasizes that "ultimately, it is the weight and type of evidence that establishes whether the 
beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge." Supra at 13. Here, for the reasons discussed above, 
the Petitioner's evidence is insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is 
either special or advanced. 
Accordingly, we find the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and that he was and will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
See Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. § 136. Here the Petitioner has not met that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of K- P.A., ID# 220125 (AAO Feb. 27, 2017) 
II