dismissed L-1B Case: Business Analytics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18289242 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 6, 2021 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, a.__ ___________ __. development enterprise, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its "business systems analyst" under the L-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 1 
The California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish, as 
required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and 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 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. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B nonimmigrant visa classification, 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. Section 101( a)(15)(L) of the Act 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 is part of al I organization that designs, manufactures, and markets a range 
o±O products and services. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary was employed abroad as a 
business system analyst, the same as his proposed position in the United States, and that in order to 
succeed in that position, the job candidate "must possess a singular grasp of [its] proprietary internal 
finance tools, along with how these tools interact with the software required to push [its] business 
1 The Beneficiary was initially admitted to the United States in L- lB status under the Petitioner 's blanket L petition with 
a three-year validity date of April 27 , 2018 to April 26, 2021 . 
improvement." The Petitioner further states that it requires the services of"an elite group of financial 
experts" who have specialized knowledge and experience to work with its 
I I product line." In an effort to show that the Beneficiary qualifi .... es-f-.o-r-th_e_p_ro_p_o_s_e_d_p_o_s1-·t1-·o-n_., 
the Petitioner points to the Beneficiary's education, which includes the U.S. equivalent of a bachelor's 
degree in computer engineering, and discusses the Beneficiary's employment with the foreign 
organization, where he is claimed to have acquired "expert-level command" of the organization's 
payroll processes and procedures. The Petitioner states that it will compensate the Beneficiary 
$132,102 annually in exchange for his '"uncommon skills and specialized experience," which the 
Petitioner claims will make the Beneficiary a "leading asset" for the U.S. entity. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether the Beneficiary has been employed abroad and will be employed 
in the United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
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. 2 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if they have: (1) a "special" knowledge of the 
petitioning organization's product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" 
level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the petitioning organization. Section 
214(c)(2)(B) of the Act; 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 statutory 
definition. 
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 beneficiaiy'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 their 
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. 
2 The Petitioner does not claim thatthe Beneficiaiywas employed a broad in an executive ormanagerialcapacity. 
2 
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 supp01ied 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, aiiiculate with specificitythe 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 submitted a suppmiing cover letter highlighting the Beneficiaiy's 
"expe1i knowledge of [the organization]' s business intelligence technologies, rep01iing technologies 
capabilities, relational databases, data warehouse platforms, and architecture tools" as well as his 11 
years of "extensive background and specialized knowledge" in business analytics and payroll pay law, 
some of which the Beneficiary acquired prior to his employment with the Petitioner's foreign affiliate. 
Although the Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary has "advanced technical skills and in-depth 
knowledge" of the organization's "database warehouse" and understands how the organization's 
"internal systems interface to [the Petitioner's] overall system of data architecture," the Beneficiaiy's 
knowledge was not identified as either "special," pertaining to the petitioning organization's products 
or services, or "advanced," pertaining to the organization's processes and procedures. The Petitioner 
also did not describe its organization's technologies, databases, platforms, or tools, nor did it explain 
why specialized knowledge is required to work with or use them. Likewise, although the Petitioner 
listed the Beneficiary's assigned job duties, it did not distinguish those duties as uncommon among 
other similarly situated professionals within theO industry or establish that they require knowledge 
that is further along or is more complex than the knowledge possessed by others within the 
organization. 
The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary is able to "digest complex financial rules" and work 
within the context of its "comp lex structure." However, the Petitioner did not exp lain how its structure 
is complex or establish that specialized knowledge is required to understand and work within the 
context of this structure. In order to establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, 
the Petitioner must show that the knowledge pertains to the petitioning organization's products or 
services or to its processes and procedures. Here, the Petitioner did not establish that the "complex 
financial rules" that the Beneficiary is able to understand pertain specifically to the petitioning entity. 
Although the Petitioner claimed that the specialized knowledge in question pertains to its 
organization's "processes," thus indicating that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced, the 
Petitioner did not adequately describe those processes to support the claim that the Beneficiaiy's 
knowledge cannot be transferred without significant cost and loss of time, as claimed. The Petitioner 
also did not compare the Beneficiary's knowledge of its processes to the knowledge of other 
3 
employees within the company. As such, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is further along in progress, complexity, and understanding. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner was asked to identify the Beneficiary's knowledge as 
either special or advanced and to compare his knowledge to that of other workers in the industry or 
within the employing entity. 3 The Petitioner was allowed the opportunity to provide evidence of the 
Beneficiary's training, work experience, or education showing the period of time he has been using or 
developing the claimed specialized knowledge. 
In response, the Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary's knowledge pertains to the organization's 
"region specific processes" and requires the use of "a unique set of skills" that include a "deep 
knowledge" of the Petitioner's database warehouse and an understanding of how the organization's 
"internal systems interface to [its] overall system of data architecture." The Petitioner further stated 
that the Beneficiary's knowledge is ata level that is "not common within the company or the industry" 
and would take another individual three to four years to acquire. However, the Petitioner did not 
adequately describe the processes in which the Beneficiary is claimed to have specialized knowledge 
and therefore it did not explain how those processes are uncommon within the industry or establish 
that the Beneficiary's level ofknowledge and understanding of those processes surpasses that of others 
within the organization. 
Further, in a description of the skills and knowledge required for the proposed position, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary gained advanced knowledge of its "different Internal databases, Data 
Warehouse, and Business Objects" in the course of developing the "Order to Cash and Sales Finance" 
platform, which is used to support the Petitioner's "Rebates processes." However, the Petitioner did 
not elaborate on the complexities of the platforn1 that the Beneficiary developed, nor did it clarify how 
developing this platform contributed to the specialized knowledge the Beneficiary is claimed to have 
acquired. Moreover, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary developed this platform and gained 
the claimed advanced knowledge in the course of his U.S. employment. This undermines the claim 
that specialized knowledge was a prerequisite for such employment and thatthe Beneficiarypossessed 
the required specialized knowledge at the time he was transfen-ed to the United States. Although the 
Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's foreign job duties and stated thatthe Beneficiary's employment with 
the foreign affiliate resulted in his gaining an understanding of the organization's information security 
and global processes, the Petitioner did not provide a meaningful understanding of these processes, 
delineate a knowledge progression time line, or otherwise explain when or how he gained the claimed 
specialized knowledge that is required for the U.S. position. Thus, despite claiming that the 
Beneficiary's foreign employment resulted in his "understanding" of the organization's technologies, 
databases, tools, and data platform, the Petitioner did not establish that such "understanding" rises to 
the level of specialized knowledge. 
In a separate letter, the foreign entity's global manager stated that the Beneficiary "was responsible 
for building applications to support the finance organization" and "gained experience" in the 
following: 
3 Knowledge that is "special" must be distinct or uncommon in comparison to others in the industry, while knowledge that 
is "advanced" must be established as uncommon in the industry and it must be greatly developed or further along in 
progress in comparison to others within the employing entity. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-JB 
Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17,2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 
4 
1. Software Development; 
2. Test/Test automation; 
3. Infrastructure; 
4. Information security processes and requirements; 
5. Providing automation for Finance organization on a global scale; 
6. Encryption service and methodology; 
7. Database and Data Warehouse experience; 
8. Data privacy and Legal guidelines; 
9. LAMP Stack Development; 
10. Python and PHP; 
11. Teradata, Business Objects and Tableau Server. 
The letter did not explain how gaining experience in these 11 elements amounted to specialized 
knowledge of the organization's products or services of its processes and procedures. Although the 
Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary gained specialized knowledge while working for the foreign 
entity, it did not provide describe howthe Beneficiary's knowledge progressed from the time he started 
his period of employment abroad to the time he attained a level of knowledge that is claimed to be 
specialized. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's response letter stated that the Beneficiary's employment abroad was for 
a 16-month period, from January 1, 2017to May 8, 2018. This information is inconsistent with Section 
1, No. 5 of the Form I-129 L Classification Supplement, which states that the Beneficiaiy's 
employment with the foreign affiliate commenced on January 11, 2016. The Petitioner must resolve 
this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter ojHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). This inconsistency regarding the duration of the 
Beneficiary's employment with the Petitioner's foreign affiliate further impedes our ability to gauge 
how and when the Beneficiary gained the knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the denial, referring to statements provided with the RFE response 
where it stated that the Beneficiary's knowledge is "distinct and uncommon" based on his "deep 
understanding of [the Petitioner]'s internal systems," his "understanding of [the company's] internal 
security processes and requirements, internal encryption service, and internal databases and data 
warehouses," and his "advanced experience" with the organization's reporting tools. The Petitioner 
does not, however, establish that the Beneficiary's "deep understanding" and "advanced experience" 
in these various elements is synonymous with specialized knowledge, nor does it resolve the 
inconsistency regarding the duration of the Beneficiary's employment abroad, a factor that is highly 
relevant to a determination of whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a specialized 
knowledge capacity for at least one year. 
If, as stated by the foreign entity's global manager, the Beneficiary did not assume his foreign position 
until January 201 7, this would indicate that it took the Beneficiary only 16 months to acquire and be 
employed in a specialized knowledge position. Not only would this undermine the Petitioner's claim 
that three to four years would be necessary to transfer the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge to 
another individual, but it would also call into question whether the Beneficiary was employed in a 
specialized knowledge capacity for at least one year prior to assuming his position with the U.S. entity. 
5 
That said, even if the Beneficiary's employment abroad commenced in January 2016, as claimed on 
appeal and in the L Classification Supplement, the total period of employment still would not have 
amounted to the three to four years the Petitioner claims is necessary to transfer the Beneficiary's 
claimed specialized knowledge to another individual. 
Fmiher, although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary assumed a "unique specialized knowledge 
position" during his employment abroad, it does not adequately supp01i this claim. Instead, the 
Petitioner highlights the Beneficiary's role in the petitioning organization, pointing out that the 
Beneficiary is responsible for supporting the Petitioner's servers. The Beneficiary's significance, 
however, is not in dispute. Furthermore, the fact that the Beneficiary holds a significant position is 
not a factor in our determination as to whether he possessed the required specialized knowledge and 
was employed abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge for at least one year at the time 
of his transfer to the United States. Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary acquired 11 
years of '"extensive background and specialized knowledge of both business analytics and payroll 
law," a considerable portion of that time was spent in other employment prior to the Beneficiary's 
joining the Petitioner's foreign affiliate. It is unclear how the education and experience gained prior 
to the Beneficiary's employment with the petitioning organization resulted in specialized knowledge 
that pertains specifically to this organization. As stated in the USCIS Policy Memorandum cited 
earlier, in order to establish that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is special, the knowledge 
must pertain to the petitioning organization's products or services; similarly, knowledge that is 
claimed to be advanced must pertain to processes and procedures that are specific to the petitioning 
organization. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-JB Adjudications Policy, supra at 
7. Merely establishing that the Beneficiary has "an extensive background" in business analytics and 
payroll law is not sufficient to show that his knowledge pe1iains to the petitioning organization's 
products or services or to its processes and procedures and that it rises to the specialized level. 
The Petitioner also argues that the Director applied a higher standard of proof in reviewing the 
evidence, asserting that it provided a "detailed job description describing specific tasks, the specialized 
knowledge involved, and percentage of time spent" and thereby established that the Beneficiary's 
position requires specialized knowledge. We disagree. Although the Beneficiary's job duties are 
relevant in determining whether the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge, as previously discussed, 
in order to establish that the Beneficiary has either special or advanced knowledge, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate that the knowledge required to perform those duties is not commonly held throughout fue 
particular industry and that it could not be readily transferred to another individual with a similar 
educational and professional background. In addition, if claiming that the knowledge is advanced, fue 
Petitioner must also demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge pertains to its organization's 
processes and procedures and that it is further along in progress, complexity, and understanding in 
comparison to others within the same organization. See id. Here, although the Petitioner has claimed 
that the Beneficiary's knowledge "is at a level that is not common within the company or the industry," 
it has not supported this claim with a discussion of the knowledge possessed by others and an 
explanation of how the Beneficiary's knowledge is distinct among other company employees who 
work with the same employer's "proprietary systems and tools." The Petitioner must support its 
6 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe,25 I&N Dec. 3 69, 
376 (AAO 2010). 
Lastly, we acknowledge that the Department of State approved the initial request for L-lB 
classification submitted on behalf of the Beneficiary. Given the prior approval, we point to the 
following guidance: 
In adjudicating a request for extension of L-lB status, USCIS will take note of a 
previous determination ofL-lB eligibility made by the Department of State or U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection, but will make a determination on the instant petition 
based on the record before it, consistent with the guidance provided in this 
memorandum. 
USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-1 B Adjudications Policy, supra at 15. Further, each 
petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record. Therefore, in making a determination 
of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in that individual record of 
proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(16)(ii). We are not required to approve applications or petitions 
where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been 
enoneous. See Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm'r 1988); see also 
Sussex Eng 'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). 
Accordingly, in light of the evidentiary deficiencies described herein, 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. 
7