dismissed L-1B Case: Artificial Intelligence

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 18849054 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 9, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner , a provider of messaging services , seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
principal artificial intelligence (AI) engineer under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L) , 8 U.S .C. 
§ 11 0l(a)(15)(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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish , as required , that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge; has been employed 
abroad in a qualifying capacity; and will be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge 
capacity. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we conclude that the Petitioner did 
not meet that burden . Therefore , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB nonimmigrant visa classification , a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge ," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary 's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 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 specialized knowledge capacity . Id. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education , training , and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) . 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner describes itself as "a messaging services company" that "has been providing SMS, 
email, Voice, USSD and IP messaging and chatbot development services to leading BFSI , Retail , [ and] 
e-commerce companies." The Petitioner asserts that its "platform handles over 4.5 Billion messages 
per month." The Petitioner describes its "Proprietary Tool": 
[The Petitioner's subsidiary] developed its own Natural Language Processing (NLP) 
technology in India. NLP is a technology which enables machines to understand and 
communicate with humans in human language, not formal computer languages .... 
NLP technology falls under the umbrella of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and enables 
computers to act like a human, allowing them to communicate and respond to [a] user's 
query smartly . 
. . . From Google Search to Amazon Alexa, all major products in the world which 
interface with humans using language are driven by NLP technologies. 
The Petitioner states that NLP is used in "artificial intelligence software that can simulate a 
conversation or cha[]t with a user in a natural language through messaging applications, website, 
mobile [applications] or [by] telephone." 
The Petitioner's Indian subsidiary hired the Beneficiary in 2016 as a lead NLP engineer, giving him 
the title of principal AI engineer in 2019. The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a principal 
AI engineer with an annual salary of $125,000. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary devotes the 
following percentages of his working time to the following duties: 
1. Research and prototype of Machine Leaming / Natural Language Processing 
algorithms, to stay ahead of competition and on top of cutting edge academic 
research. [20%] 
2. Lead the engineering and development of the AI tools. [30%] 
3. Collaborate with the engineering teams, to enable cohesive implementation of AI 
modules inside the products. [15%] 
4. Collaborate with product and project management teams to ensure a stable and 
viable AI dependent product and development plan. [15%] 
5. Design and implement data management and tag strategies to ensure accurate data 
being tagged for AI systems. [15%] 
6. Push the vision for AI and explore new possibilities in and out of the current 
products. [5%] 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge 
that is special or advanced compared to others in the same field. The Director also found that the 
record did not establish that the Beneficiary had previously been employed in a position that was 
managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge, and that the U.S. position involves a special 
or advanced level of knowledge. 
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 
2 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's past and intended future 
employment involve specialized knowledge. 1 
Under the statute, specialized knowledge consists of either: (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, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). 
Specialized knowledge is also defined as 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
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. 
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 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. 
The Petitioner submits several letters signed by the company's chief financial officer (CFO). Some 
of these letters are on the letterhead of the petitioning entity in California, and list a U.S. telephone 
number to contact the CFO; others are on the letterhead of the Petitioner's subsidiary in India, showing 
an Indian contact number. 
The CFO states: "the Beneficiary has accumulated almost three (3) continuous years of work 
experience at [the foreign subsidiary] devoted exclusively to NLP," and is "a key employee" with 
"uniquely cross-functional knowledge of our proprietary software and advanced knowledge of internal 
company processes." The CFO does not explain how the Beneficiary's duties as a lead NLP engineer 
from 2016 to 2019 differed from those of a principal AI engineer thereafter. Rather, the CFO cites the 
same job description for both positions. 
The CFO states that the Beneficiary was hired directly into a "specialized knowledge position," and 
that "the Beneficiary was hired ... to assume this specialized knowledge role at the overseas entity." 
1 The Petitioner does not claim, in the alternative, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial 
capacity. 
3 
This wording indicates that the Beneficiary did not require any prior experience with the company to 
qualify for his initial position as lead NLP engineer. But the Petitioner does not establish where or 
how the Beneficiary obtained relevant specialized knowledge before his hiring in 2016. Instead, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's "knowledge is rooted in over 3 years of work experience" with 
the foreign subsidiary - experience that he did not possess at the time of his initial hiring. 
Also, while the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has accumulated significant specialized 
knowledge during three years at the foreign subsidiary, the Beneficiary's stated responsibilities do not 
appear to have changed during the course of his employment with the foreign subsidiary. The 
subsidiary provides one job description, and indicates that this same description covers the 
Beneficiary's responsibilities and duties from the time of hiring to the present, both before and after 
what is described as a promotion from lead NLP engineer to principal AI engineer. 
The CFO contends that, in comparison to other employees of the petitioning organization, the 
Beneficiary has much higher skills in the following areas: 
• NLP infrastructure development; 
• Machine learning algorithms development; 
• Translating product requirements to Machine Leaming specs; 
• Developing data management and product development strategy; 
• Enabling consumption of AI and ML tools; and 
• Testing and identifying loopholes in the data collection and product development phase to 
enable automation. 
The CFO states that "out of around 100 people in the engineering department, no one possesses more 
knowledge than [the Beneficiary] since he has developed or directed the development of all the tools 
and algorithms by himself" The CFO also states: "As our Lead NLP Engineer and now our Principal 
AI Engineer, all the intellectual property around the use of NLP and Machine Leaming has been 
directly developed by him or was made under his direction." In later correspondence, the CFO states 
that, out of 176 employees, "Beneficiary is one (1) out of 3 employees ... who has functional and 
operational knowledge of the end-to-end solution flow, being the key person who developed and 
researched NLP Technology at [the Indian company] since July 18, 2016." 
After the Director requested documentary evidence to permit a comparison between the Beneficiary and 
others at the company, the Petitioner submitted educational documents for the foreign subsidiary's 
principal solutions engineer and its vice president of technology architecture. The former earned a 
bachelor of engineering degree in production engineering; the latter earned a bachelor of technology 
degree in electrical engineering and undertook a "Two-Year Post-Graduate Programme in Management." 
The Petitioner, however, does not show that the Beneficiary's university education gave him 
specialized knowledge relating to AI or NLP. At the University ot1 I the Beneficiary received a 
bachelor of business studies degree in 2011, and a master's degree in operational research in 2013. 
The Petitioner submits a copy of the transcript from the Beneficiary's baccalaureate program, but not 
from his master's program. The baccalaureate transcript lists 24 specific course titles, five of which 
identifiably relate to computers or information technology: 
4 
• Computing Tools for Business Management; 
• Computer Algorith[ m ]s and Problem Solving; 
• Information Technology in Management; 
• Introduction to Data Based Management Systems; and 
• Design & Management of Information Systems. 
The Petitioner did not submit a transcript from the Beneficiary's graduate studies at the University of 
I I and therefore the record does not show what courses he took at that time. 
In response to a request for evidence[ the Petitioner submitted partial transcripts from master's degree 
programs at the University of from 2012, the University of1 I from 2012-2013, and the 
University ofl I in 2013-2014, none of which the Petitioner had mentioned in the initial 
submission. There is no evidence that the Beneficiary received a degree from any of these institutions. 
A transcript for the "First Year of Graduate Studies" in "Mathematical Models in Economics and 
Finance" fromc::J lists only mathematics courses. The transcript froml I indicates that the 
Beneficiary began, but did not complete, a master's degree program in mathematical sciences, 
including three electives in computer sciences: 
• Introduction to Bioinformatics; 
• Machine Leaming; and 
• Advanced Machine Leaming. 
The transcripts from .... l ___ .... I list passing grades in three of four computer science courses: 
• Machine Leaming 
• Introduction to Bioinformatics 
• Advanced Machine Leaming 
• Advanced Bioinformatics 
The other courses in I I concerned biology and statistics. The Petitioner does not explain how 
these courses gave the Beneficiary special knowledge of the Petitioner's products, service, research, 
equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. 
After the Director requested "[ e ]vidence of patents ... awarded to the petitioning organization based 
on the beneficiary's work," the Petitioner submitted co ies oflndian "Patent re istration" a lications 
naming the Beneficiar as a co-inventor of" 
c::J and~-----------------------------~' There is 
no evidence that Intellectual Property India approved the applications. The two applications are dated 
minutes apart on May 18, 2020, nearly three months after the filing of the petition and more than two 
months after the issuance of the request for evidence. The timing of the applications suggests that the 
Petitioner filed the applications to support the petition, rather than to assert any timely claim to 
intellectual property rights. These May 2020 filings cannot establish that the Petitioner met all 
eligibility requirements at the time of filing in February 2020, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). The lack of evidence of such filings from before 2020 is significant, considering the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary has been leading the development of the company's bedrock 
technology since 2016. 
5 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish "that the beneficiary has knowledge or 
experience in the field of computer technology engineering and development that is significantly 
different from that possessed by similarly employed workers in the same industry." 
On appeal, the Petitioner discusses various aspects of the Beneficiary's claimed duties, and asserts that 
only the Beneficiary has the knowledge necessary to perform or oversee the various functions 
described. The Petitioner asserts that much of this knowledge is available only within the company, 
and that only the Beneficiary has that knowledge, which leaves unanswered the question of how the 
Beneficiary obtained that claimed specialized knowledge. 
The Petitioner also observes that the Beneficiary has prepared training materials for other employees, 
but involvement in such training does not demonstrate that the covered subject matter amounts to 
specialized knowledge. 
The assertion that the Beneficiary's knowledge is the result of his experience with the company 
contradicts the claim that the company "initially employed [him] in the specialized knowledge position 
of Lead NLP Engineer in July 2016." The Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary had any prior 
employment experience with NLP technology, and the incomplete evidence of the Beneficiary's 
university education does not show training in that technology either. We must conclude, from the 
available evidence, that the Petitioner employed the Beneficiary not merely as an NLP engineer, but 
as a lead NLP engineer, with little or no prior experience with NLP technology. Statements indicating 
that the Beneficiary's duties have remained essentially the same since 2016 do not support the 
conclusion that his responsibilities grew appreciably over time. 
The Petitioner seeks to compare the Beneficiary to over 170 other employees at the foreign subsidiary, 
but the Petitioner provided specific evidence relating to only two of those employees, both of whom 
earned degrees that appear to relate to the company's work more directly than the Beneficiary's 
business degree does. The Beneficiary pursued graduate studies at several other universities with 
mixed results, but the Petitioner has not shown that, or explained how, the Beneficiary's studies led to 
specialized knowledge ofNLP. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. As such, we 
need not discuss the question of whether his past work abroad, and his intended employment in the 
United States, require such specialized knowledge. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge and will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity with the 
Petitioner in the United States. See Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. 
IV. ADDITIONAL ISSUES 
Beyond the Director's decision, we briefly note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(i) requires 
the Petitioner to establish a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's overseas employer. The 
Petitioner has provided only fragmentary documentation of this relationship, such as an interrupted 
sequence of share certificates. The Petitioner does not explain the absence of complete documentation. 
6 
Also, the record does not establish the extent of the Petitioner's business operations in the United 
States (as opposed to services remotely provided to U.S. clients by foreign entities). On the petition 
form, the Petitioner claims only two employees in the United States, compared to 176 employees at 
the subsidiary in India. The Petitioner states that, if the petition were approved, then the company's 
U.S. staff would consist of the following: 
• Chief Operating Officer; 
• Principal AI Engineer (the Beneficiary); 
• Director of Business Development; and 
• Business Development Consultant 
This list includes no other dedicated AI or NLP staff in the United States. 
The Petitioner states that its initial submission includes a "lease agreement," but the submitted 
document is a "membership agreement" i11 I ,I which is a shared workspace area inD 
I I California. The month-to-month agreement permits the Petitioner to use one desk in the 
shared space. The Petitioner executed the agreement in 2015, before any company related to the 
Petitioner had hired the Beneficiary, and therefore we must conclude that the Petitioner rented this one 
workspace for use by an employee other than the Beneficiary. Given this very limited arrangement, 
the Petitioner has not shown where the Beneficiary would work in the United States, or even that the 
petitioning entity has an actual site of operations in the United States. It bears noting that thee=] 
I I address ofi f does not match thel !address shown on the Petitioner's printed 
letterhead and income tax returns. 2 
The Petitioner has submitted minimal evidence of business activity in the United States, and the 
company relies on what amounts to virtual space leased from a third party. It is questionable that the 
Petitioner is doing business in the United States as required by 8 C.F.R. § (l)(l)(ii)(G)(2). 
V. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge or that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the 
United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 USCTS records show that unsuccessful attempts to verify the Petitioner's business operations at thd !>i.ddress led, 
in part, to the issuance of a notice of intent to revoke the approval of an earlier petition for this Beneficiary. The Petitioner 
acknowledges the issuance of that notice in its current petition. The Petitioner claims a different address in this proceeding, 
atl Is location, but an administrative notice we mailed to that address has been returned as undeliverable. 
7