dismissed L-1B Case: Business Software Consulting

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-USA , LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 6, 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , a business software consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge; has been employed 
abroad as a manager , executive , or in a specialized knowledge capacity; and will be employed in the 
United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. The Director also found that the Beneficiary 's 
intended offsite work appears to be labor-for-hire, unrelated to the Petitioner's business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it has met its burden of proof, and that the Director erred by 
relying on an incomplete and inaccurate reading of the record . 
Upon de novo review , we will dismiss the appeal , but we will withdraw the specific finding that the 
Beneficiary would apparently perform labor-for-hire.' 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B 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 1 Ol(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 
1 The record shows that a core function of the petitioning company is to install and configure a third-party banking 
platform for its customers. The customer named in the record has engaged the Petitioner's services for this purpose. The 
work order in the record calls for specific functions to be performed during a limited period of time. The Beneficiary 
would not be simply an outsourced IT worker performing the customer's business functions while nominally employed 
by the Petitioner. 
.
Matter of A-lJSA. LLC 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a specialized knowledge capacity. !d. 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). 
Under the statute, a beneficiary is considered to have specialized knowledge if he 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. . Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). A petitioner 
may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position 
satisfy either prong of the statutory definition of specialized knowledge. 
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(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
II. UNRELATED INFORMATION 
Before we tum to the merits of the petition, we will address the Petitioner's allegation that the 
Director "has conflated the petitioner's case with the case of another petitioner, and therefore not 
performed a good faith analysis of the information and evidence submitted." The decision included 
references to' "and "the various agreements and amendments \Vith '' 
While the Director's references to are erroneous, they are also isolated and do not invalidate 
the entire decision. The remainder of the decision includes numerous correct references to the 
Petitioner; the Beneficiary's foreign employer; and exhibits in the record. The decision includes 
quotations from record materials. Whatever the origin of the very few incorrect references to 
there are many more correct references \Vhich make it clear that the adjudicator was examining the 
correct record of proceedings when rendering the decision now under revie\V. There is no indication 
that the occasional appearances of the name" altered the outcome of the decision. 
Also, in the denial notice, the Director stated: "In the initial submission, you state that the 
beneficiary created your proprietary products." The Petitioner states that "this false claim is 
evidence that ... the adjudicator did not ... review the initial submission." This appears, however, 
to be an oversimplification rather than an erroneous or "false claim" on the Director's part. As the 
Director correctly noted, the Petitioner stated in response to the RFE that the Beneficiary "played a 
critical role in the development ... of SAP-based business intelligence solutions," which can be 
interpreted to mean that he had a hand in their creation. In light of the Petitioner's claim that it is 
"false" to credit the Beneficiary with the creation of the Petitioner's methodologies, we \vill assume 
that the Beneficiary's role in their development was minimal. 
2 
Matter of A-USA. LLC 
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 the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that his past and intended future 
employment involves specialized knowledge? 
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. 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. 
Special knowledge concerns knowledge ofthe 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. 
2 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
3 
.
Matter of A-lJSA, LLC 
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 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. 
The Petitioner stated: 
[The Beneficiary], through his tenure abroad, has become one of [the Canadian 
affiliate's] experts regarding [the company's] proprietary technologies and 
methodologies. Specifically, [the Beneficiary] possesses specialized knowledge of 
[the company's] intellectual property such as [its] 
[its] Banking Reference Models, and [its] Banking Reference 
Architecture . . . . [The Beneficiary's] temporary presence is now being sought in 
conjunction with a major project ... [which] seeks to implement 
as its commercial online channel application. The client has 
engaged [the Petitioner] to provide implementation services to install, configure, and 
enhance the platform through application of its proprietary 
As a key part of this project (which entails a full 
systems-level overhaul of the company's tracking and financial management 
software), [the Beneficiary] will provide technical expertise on the implementation of 
the SAP product that leverages the [petitioner's] technologies and methodologies, 
including the 
A separate letter provided more details: 
The [Petitioner's] international family of companies specializes in the development 
and implementation of proprietary software interface systems which allow for 
customized access to and use of the SAP platform of business software . . . . 
Specifically, our unique software interface solutions provide clients with user-friendly 
methods for increasing efficiency and capability throughout all critical operational 
functions .... 
The [petitioning organization's] international ... family of companies specializes in 
banking platforms, implementations, upgrades and services that enable financial 
institutions to run their day-to-day operations and improve their technologies. [For] 
large banking transformation projects ... [the Petitioner] customizes the SAP 
banking modules to integrate with the customer's existing architecture systems, 
executes the migration of old system data to the new system, and reduces the 
complexity of outdated systems where possible .... 
4 
.
Matter of A-USA, LLC 
, .. [The petitioning organization's] products and services have only recently been 
introduced into the United States market, making it inherently necessary for [the 
Petitioner] ... to require the temporary services of our most talented international ... 
employees, such as [the Beneficiary], to assist in further developing [the Petitioner's] 
presence in the North American market. Indeed, these foreign ... employees are 
currently the only individuals who possess the highly unique specialized knowledge 
combination of SAP product expertise and implementation methodology 
experience required to handle, install, customize, and navigate our Company's 
proprietary solutions. 
The Petitioner asserted that workers '\vith deep, hands-on experience in SAP products and modules, 
as well as nearly three years of experience working with and training on [the Petitioner's] 
methodology," "are very limited in number." The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary "is clearly 
distinct or uncommon in the SAP banking industry" due to his "extensive knowledge of 
technologies and applications, as well as [the petitioning organization's] 
specific methodologies." 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary worked with "SAP applications and technologies" for 
several years before he began working at the Petitioner's affiliate in Canada, which then gave him 
"unique specialized knowledge of [the organization's] proprietary implementation methodology." 
The Petitioner's Canadian affiliate asserted that, during his employment abroad, the Beneficiary 
"utilized his knowledge of [the organization's] proprietary methodologies and intellectual property" 
named above. 
After the Director requested further evidence about the Beneficiary's work, the Petitioner asserted 
that the Beneficiary "has a clear expertise in and most importantly, [the 
Petitioner's] methodologies." The standard for eligibility, however, is special or advanced 
knowledge, rather than "clear expertise." 
By statute, specialized knowledge constitutes "special knowledge of the company product and its 
application in international markets or . . . an advanced level of knowledge of processes and 
procedures of the company." Section 214( c )(2)(B) of the Act. The Petitioner acknmvledged that 
is not a product that is specific to" the petitioning entity. The Petitioner stated that "the 
true distinction [the Beneficiary's] duties ... and the duties that a similarly situated \Vorker could 
perform, is [the Beneficiary ]s in-depth knmvledge of, and experience with, [the Petitioner's] 
proprietary methodology, framework, and architecture for integration of with [each] 
client's existing systems." The Petitioner states that other software engineers "would lack the 
knowledge of in the finance sector as it is applied through [the Petitioner's] methodologies" 
(emphasis added). The Petitioner did not establish, or explain how, the Beneficiary's knmvledge of 
5 
.
Mauer of A-USA , LLC 
the Petitioner's methodologies permitted him to install and configure 
be meaningfully distinguished from the work of others in the field. 
in a way that could 
This is significant because the Petitioner's role, as shown on a work order submitted with the 
petition, is "to install , configure and enhance the to meet the Customer['s] requirements." 
The work order also indicates that the purpose of the enhancements is to integrate into the 
client's existing systems and "to match [the] look and feel" of"the layouts and designs provided by 
the [customer's] team." The Petitioner did not explain how its methodologies affect the end result 
for its customers, in terms of their ability to use the third-party system after installation 
and configuration. The Petitioner acknowledged that the Beneficiary had "two years of directly 
applicable experience with " distinct from his "sixteen months of experience 
working directly with [the Petitioner's] proprietary ... methodology." Other companies are able to 
install and configure even if they do so without the Petitioner's proprietary methods. The 
Petitioner has provided background information about its own methods, but has not established the 
difference between those and the methods of their competitors. 
The Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's training between 2008 and 2014. Most of this training took 
place while the Beneficiary worked for employers unrelated to the Petitioner. The Petitioner does 
not explain how this third-party training gave him special knowledge of the Petitioner's product and 
its application in international markets or an advanced level of knowledge of the Petitioner's 
processes and procedures. Much of the training related to but if that product is used 
throughout the industry, then the Beneficiary's familiarity with it does not inherently constitute 
. specialized knowledge. 
The Beneficiary listed four "trainings completed" during his time at the Petitioner's foreign affiliate: 
• certification (December 20 15) 
• Digital Remote Training (October 20 16-January 2017) 
• Digital Training- Austria (January 20 17) 
• certification (January 20 17) 
The Beneficiary stated that he has misplaced the documentation of this training, and the record 
contains no further information about it. The Petitioner and the Beneficiary did not specify whether 
the above training was continuous or intermittent, which is relevant to the question of how much 
time the training actually took (and therefore how difficult it would be to provide the same training 
to other workers). The Petitioner also did not indicate whether the training is routine for the 
organization's employees. The certification involves training in a third-party framework, 
rather than the Petitioner's own products, processes, or procedures. 
The Petitioner stated that a new employee would require 28 months of experience, plus "additional 
trainings," before the Petitioner "is ready to assign them to a US client." We note that the 
Beneficiary worked for the Petitioner's foreign affiliate for less than 29 months at the time the 
Petitioner filed the petition, which would imply that the Beneficiary had only been client-ready for 
.
Matter of A-USA, LLC 
only a few weeks at the time of filing. This is not consistent with the Petitioner's description of the 
Beneficiary's work history \Vith the company. 
After the filing of the petition, the Petitioner stated that it "has just released a proprietary platform," 
which "is an actual platform, and not an implementation methodology like . 
. . ' The Petitioner 
stated: "in order to integrate this product, our employees must have in-depth knowledge of [the 
Petitioner's] methodologies, Reference 
Model, and as well as of 
processes." 
For a beneficiary without qualifying managerial or executive experience, a fundamental requirement 
for the L-1 B classification is at least one year of experience abroad in a capacity that involved 
specialized knowledge. The Beneficiary was not using the new proprietary platform a year before 
the petition's filing date in April 2017; he underwent "remote training from October 2016- January 
2017 and ... 2 weeks of dedicated training in February 2017." We need not decide whether or not 
the Beneficiary's training gave him special or advanced knowledge of that platform, because he had, 
and used, that knowledge for less than a year before the t1ling date. Therefore, eligibility rests on a 
showing that the Beneficiary already had specialized knowledge in April 2016, a year before filing 
and six months before he began training in the Petitioner's new platform. 
The Petitioner submitted printouts of electronic slide presentations and "High-Level Design 
document[ s]" drafted by the Beneficiary, as evidence of his "Development of Qualifying Specialized 
KnO\vledge." The Petitioner also indicated that the Beneficiary "Perform[ ed] His Specialized 
Knowledge Role" by updating and editing other "High-Level Design document[s]" for the foreign 
affiliate. These materials provide highly technical details about the nature of the Beneficiary's work, 
but they do not show that the knowledge required to work with the information qualifies as "special" 
or "advanced." 
In the denial notice, the Director acknowledged that the Beneficiary has acquired detailed knowledge 
of the Petitioner's processes and procedures. Nevertheless, the Director concluded that "longevity, 
hours on the job, work experience, and knowledge of a firm's technically complex products alone do 
not equate to 'special' or 'advanced' knowledge." The Director noted that the terms "special" and 
"advanced" are inherently comparative, and the Petitioner has not sufficiently compared the 
Beneficiary to others working in the field. The Director found that the Petitioner had not shovm that 
the Beneficiary's knowledge "is knowledge not possessed or easily· obtained by others in [the 
petitioning] company or in [its] industry." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director issued a "vague and overbroad" decision that did 
not give full consideration to the Petitioner's credible and detailed information. The Director quoted 
at length from the Petitioner's statements over the course of a nine-page decision, and listed the 
exhibits that the Petitioner had submitted. The decision indicates that the Director took the full 
record into consideration. 
.
Matter ofA-USA, LLC 
The Petitioner repeats and expands upon the assertion that, while the Petitioner "specializes in 
implementation projects involving SAP soft\vare" from a third-party source, the Beneficiary has 
specialized knowledge of the Petitioner's "methodologies and hmv they are applied in international 
markets." The Petitioner asserts that its "customized solutions allow for our clients to utilize SAP 
banking software in a manner that is directly tailored to their specific needs and operations," 
resulting in "a far more efficient system than any 'off the shelf product can offer." The Petitioner 
maintains that it has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that "the beneficiary's 
knowledge of [the Petitioner's] proprietary methodologies is not ordinarily found, or does not appear 
frequently, amongst similarly situated " 
The Petitioner, however, has not shown that use of its proprietary methodologies has a significant 
impact on the client's results in comparison to other means of installing software. The 
Petitioner also does explain how the ability to customize and configure SAP software translates to 
specialized knowledge-the Petitioner provides no basis for comparison to show that this ability is 
not widespread in the industry, or that only workers with special or advanced knowledge are able to 
serve clients in this way. In the absence of such evidence, we must conclude that other workers are 
able to produce comparable results, simply using different means to do so. 
A petitioner's statements may provide persuasive evidence of specialized knowledge if they are 
detailed, specific, and credible. Here, the Petitioner asks us to put great weight on its statements 
regarding the Beneficiary's knowledge of its organization. However, the record lacks probative 
evidence demonstrating that extensive training is required to perform the duties it claims are 
different from those of others in the Beneficiary's field, either within or outside of the organization. 
While it is possible that there are no other employees with exactly the same knowledge and skill set 
the Beneficiary possesses, the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge is in 
fact significantly different from that generally held by workers in similar positions in the industry, or 
that it would require up to a full year or longer to acquire the knowledge needed for the position. 
To differentiate the Beneficiary's knowledge from other employees within the petitioning 
organization, we must review the duties of those employees in similar positions, as well as their 
training, education, and length of experience with the petitioning organization's mission. Here, the 
Petitioner has not provided evidence to allow such a comparison. The Petitioner does not describe 
how this Beneficiary's work and responsibilities differ from other employees or how other 
employees gained their knowledge of the petitioning organization. The Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced within the petitioning organization's own 
operations. 
In sum, the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's combination of training, experience, 
work assignments, and knowledge of the Petitioner's methodologies has given him special or 
advanced knowledge. While the Beneficiary may be a valuable employee who is well-qualified for 
the proposed position in the United States, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knmvledge. 
Matter of A-USA, LLC 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-USA. LLC, ID# I 056331 (AAO Mar. 6, 2018) 
9