dismissed L-1B Case: Cloud Computing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-US LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 24.2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-129. PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which provides consulting services related to cloud computing. seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a solution architect under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10 I (a)( 15 )( L ). 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(L). The L-IB classitication allows a corporation or other legal entity 
(including its atliliate 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. Also, the Director found that the Petitioner had 
not established that it will principally control and supervise the Beneficiary \vhile the Bcncliciary is 
employed offsite. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred by giving 
insufficient weight to the Beneficiary's ··complex" and ''highly technical" knowledge. and by 
making "baseless" assumptions regarding the Beneficiary's offsite employment. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B nonimmigrant visa classilication. 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 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition. the Beneticiary 
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. !d. 
A beneficiary is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to 
a company if the beneficiary has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in 
Matter r~f A-US LLC 
international markets or has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the 
company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § l184(c){2)(B). 
Specialized knowledge is also detined 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 expettise in the 
organization's processes and procedures. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( 1 )(ii)(D). 
II. 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 tield. 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 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's past and intended future 
employment involve specialized knowledge.
1 
A petitioner may establish eligibility for an L-1 B visa by submitting evidence that the beneficiary 
and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition. 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 beneticiary'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 \vcight and 
type of evidence which establishes whether or not the beneficiary actually possesses specialized 
knowledge. We cannot make a factual determination regarding a bencficiatfs 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 
1 
The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
.
Matter of A-US' LLC 
involved, and the nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe hO\v 
such knowledge is typically gained within the organization. and explain how and \vhen the 
beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
Special knowledge concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization· s products or services and its 
application in international markets . To establish that a beneficiary has special knowledge. the 
petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct 
or uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular 
industry. 
Because "advanced knowledge'' concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures. 
the 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. 
In this proceeding, the Petitioner rarely distinguishes between special and advanced knowledge, 
instead usually stating that the Beneficiary's knowledge is ''specialized and advanced:· 
The Petitioner stated: 
[The Beneficiary] is responsible for working with the company's clients to identify. 
develop, improve , and manage and solutions in accordance with 
[the company's] unique methodologies , processes. and best practices. He provides 
high technical knowledge. relationship management. process knowledge, and project 
management services, using not only his advanced and specialized knowledge of [the 
company's] unique methodologies but those of the clients. He ensures that the 
custom designed and solutions blend successfully with [the 
company's] approach and best practices .... 
Specifically , [the Beneficiary] works with a team of consultants and project leaders in 
the preparation and implementation of complex and solutions for 
our clients .... He develops, designs , and prepares technical solutions on behalf of 
the client and ensures accurate project execution within [the Petitioner's] best 
practices and the expected quality standards. [The BeneticiaryJ is the expert 
consultant on projects, counsels our customers. and ... has been an integral part of 
numerous implementation projects throughout the Americas. 
For example , [the Beneficiary] is currently participating in the implementation of 
CLM for [a client in the telecommunications infrastructure industry]. with the 
objective of standardizing the commercial process across Latin American subsidiaries 
using a robust complex , and highly integrated solution. [The Beneficiary 1 is the 
.
Matter of A-US LLC 
Certified Solution Architect for this project, which is a role that can only be 
held by an individual that has deep knowledge of solutions, has successfully 
been certified by the developer, and has several years of experience with similar 
regional implementations. More specifically, [the Beneficiary] is collecting 
requirements from the Brazil and Colombia subsidiaries and is designing the solution 
for Configure, Price and Quote (CPQ), Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM), and 
Billing (all functionalities) management processes .... 
[The Beneficiary] also successfully delivered an implementation for [a client 
in the communications industry] earlier this year. ... [The Beneficiary] served as the 
Certified Solution Architect, defining and designing the CPQ, CLM, and 
Billing solutions for the business .... [C]ustomization of the specific requirements is 
particular to each customer .... [The Beneficiary's] participation ... in the early 
discovery and design phases of the projects [is] instrumental f(Jr the success of the 
customization and the real applicability of the technical solution for the customers. In 
this particular project, [the Beneficiary's] advanced and specialized knowledge about 
CLM module and processes helped the customer to define and structure their 
contracts management process as well as to design the appropriate standard solution 
for Contracts management .... Additionally, he participated in a project for [a lottery 
authority in Canada]. The customer had already implemented but needed to 
define, design, and implement a security schema for their platform and 
Customers' Community. [The Beneficiary's] wide experience running projects on 
the com platform was very important to guide the customer through the 
visibility and security definition and design for their already implemented solution 
and to train them on being self-sufficient for their system contiguration and 
maintenance . 
. 
. . The Beneficiary has developed significant expertise and specialized knowledge in 
our unique methodologies, processes, and operations, which can only be derived 
through many years of employment with the [petitioning] organization. Specifically, 
his specialized and advanced knowledge includes, among other things, planning, 
process design, solution design, configuration, customization. and integration all 
within [the company's] methodologies. as well as our clients' technology and 
business operations and technical knowledge of and products and 
solutions. Obtaining this advanced. technical knowledge of and 
products and solutions also takes many years of practical experience working with the 
products and it is crucial to execute the and implementations within 
[the company's] methodological framework. In fact, [the Beneficiary] holds [eight] 
and certifications, further evidencing his advanced, 
specialized knowledge. 
4 
.
Maller of A-US LLC 
[The Beneficiary] will work with the technical and functional teams to blend the 
implementation of complex and solutions for our U.S. based clients 
with our methodological approach and best practices. He will monitor the progress of 
our projects from planning, design . and customization to integration. training. testing. 
and deployment. He will participate in client gathering sessions to understand their 
business requirements , advise on our services , methodologies , and best practices. and 
ensure the design of and functional solutions. He will also lead 
technical requirements gathering sessions. write requirements and technical 
architecture documents, and manage integration .... 
[The Beneficiary] is one of a few ... employees worldwide with almost ten years of 
in-depth experience in [the company's] professional, technical. and consulting 
services and project management services. 
The Petitioner did not establish any business connection with or or claim 
that it has exclusive rights to any of their products. Instead. the Petitioner uses those platforms in 
providing services to its customers. The Beneficiary's ce1iification in third-party software or cloud 
platforms does not translate into specialized knowledge of the Petitioner's products. service s. 
processes, or procedures. Rather, proticiency with those tools appears to be a basic qualification for 
the position. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary ''understands [the company's! core operations and has 
contributed to the development and improvement of our methodological approach. processes, and 
implementation services." The Petitioner did not elaborate on this point by describing specific 
processes and explaining how the Beneficiary contributed to their development. 
Asked to provide further details about the Beneficiary's work and how it reqUires specialized 
knowledge, the Petitioner stated: 
[The petitioning organization] has developed a proprietary set of products. services, 
tools, research, techniques, management , and processes and procedures ... that allow 
it to compete and succeed in the marketplace. The level of expertise required to 
understand the complex products and services ... means that [the Petitioner's! 
business model is necessarily based on having employees such as l the Beneficiary] 
with specialized and advanced knowledge of [the Petitioner's] IP [intellectual 
property]. 
The Petitioner provided flowcharts and diagrams showing technical aspects of its methodologies. 
stated that the Beneticiary "was instrumental in helping to develop .. them. and asserted that the 
Matter of A-US LLC 
Beneficiary possesses "highly specialized and advanced" knowledge of them. The Petitioner did 
not, however, explain what role the Beneficiary played in their development or elaborate upon how 
the Beneficiary's knowledge, in particular, is special or advanced. Instead. the Petitioner appeared 
to state that its entire workforce possesses specialized knowledge, stating ··employees of [the 
petitioning company] such as [the Beneficiary] must possess highly specialized knowledge across a 
range of extremely technical areas ... for [the Petitioner] to be able to succeed in the marketplace ... 
The Beneficiary's work appears to involve highly technical subjects requiring training and expertise: 
however, the submitted evidence does not distinguish the Beneficiary from others working in the 
same occupation, in similar positions, for the Petitioner and other companies in the same overall 
field. 
In a separate letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will spend about 25% of his time on 
"pre-sales duties." such as advising customers and creating proposals. He will spend the rest of his 
time on ''project management." such as determining functional requirements. ""guiding and 
developing the overall solution design,'' ""executing required configuration and implementation 
activities," and "overseeing business analyst resources." 
The Petitioner stated: 
[The Petitioner's] customers are highly sophisticated multinational companies with 
their own IT departments. Similarly, [the Petitioner's l competitors are highly 
sophisticated multinational companies . . . that try to gain competitive advantage 
through the combination of products and solutions they provide and their workforce 
of exceptionally skilled IT professionals. As a result. employees of [the petitioning 
company] such as [the Beneficiary] must possess highly specialized knowledge across 
a range of extremely technical areas for Cloud computing, Cloud applications. and 
Cloud products and services for [the Petitioner] to be able to succeed in the 
marketplace. 
The Petitioner stated that "it takes significant experience and time to learn" the Petitioner's 
"exceptionally complex'' "know how and proprietary IP.'' The Petitioner's discussion of the 
technical details of the Beneficiary's work is nearly identical in both letters. The Petitioner stated 
that one letter is from the U.S. company and the other is from a foreign affiliate vvherc the 
Beneficiary previously worked, but the same individual (identified as the chief executive officer) 
signed both letters. 
The Petitioner points to the Beneficiary's various third-party certifications. and claims that they 
"required ... rigorous study and indicate an advanced or specialized knowledge.'' The Petitioner 
stated that, in order to qualify for the certifications, the Beneficiary ""had to attend several week-long 
sessions of rigorous courses, participate in hands-on exercises and in-class implementations, do a 
presentation, and pass an exam.'' The Petitioner did not show that week-long training courses 
represent an investment of time or resources that significantly surpasses the training that workers in 
.
Matter of A-US LLC 
the Beneficiary's field typically undergo. The Petitioner did not show that these certifications are 
distinct or uncommon in the industry, or show a level of knowledge that is further along in progress, 
complexity, and understanding in comparison to the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by 
others. 
The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary's status as a Certified Administrator 
demonstrates his "clearly recognized specialized and advanced knowledge:· The Petitioner 
submitted a copy of the Certification Exam Guide. which included this statement: 
The first credential in the program is the Certified Administrator. This 
credential focuses on the features and functionality used to maintain a 
implementation. The second level in the program is the Certified 
Advanced Administrator. This credential is targeted toward the Certified 
Administrator who has mastered configuration maintenance. can 
demonstrate an understanding of administration best practices. and is able to usc the 
advanced features and functionality to solve a variety of busine ss problems. 
While third-party certification does not establish special or advanced knowledge with respect to the 
Petitioner's products or practices, we note that the Petitioner has neither claimed nor established that 
the Beneficiary is a Certified Advanced Administrator. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner had not corroborated its broad and 
general assertions that the Beneficiary helped to develop the Petitioner 's proprietary methodologie s. 
The Director acknowledged the Beneficiary's years of experience with the company. but found that 
" [w)ork experience and knowledge of a firm's technically complex products do not automaticall y 
equal 'special' or 'advanced' knowledge." The Director also found that the Beneficiary's third-part y 
certifications do not establish special or advanced knowledge and are not specitic to the Petitioner' s 
own products, process es, or services. 
On appeal, the Petitioner discusses the purpose and function of its various methodologies and 
processes and state s how the Beneficiary will use each of them in his work. For example , the 
Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will "[p]articipate in client gathering sessions using rthe 
Petitioner's] Discov ery Methodology and Report to understand the client's business requirem ents. 
advise on [the Petitioner ' s] services , and establish the proper blueprint for the customized 
and solution." The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will also '' [d]evelop and prepare Best 
Practices to be shared with [the Petitioner's] other U.S. based ... employees and provide training in 
[the Petitioner's] methodologies, processes, and best practices, as well as in and 
products and services." 
The Petitioner asserts: "Performance of these job duties requirels] an individual who possesses 
specialized knowledge and advance[d] experience with [the Petitioner 's ] proprietary methodologi es, 
process , and procedures , which can only be achieved through many yea r
s of employment with the 
Company. " As the Director noted , however , a given position does not necessaril y require 
.., 
.
Maller of A-US LLC 
specialized knowledge simply because it is highly technical. The Petitioner maintains that the work 
requires years of training experience, but the only evidence offered in this regard consists of 
certificates which the Beneficiary earned after taking a tive-day course or a 90-minute standalone 
test. These qualifications do not show how the Beneficiary's knowledge is distinct or uncommon in 
comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the same industry. or that his 
knowledge or expertise in the organization's processes and procedures is greatly developed or 
further along in progress , complexity. and understanding in comparison to other workers in the 
employer's operations. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a specialized knowledge 
employee described in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Policy Memorandum 
PM-602-0111, L-1 B Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17. 20 15), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy­
memoranda. For example, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "is one of a few employees that 
has over ten years of experience within [the petitioning] organization ... and that the Beneficiary 
"obtained an advanced level of specialized knowledge with and has even helped develop and 
improve ... methodologies, processes, and best practices [thatJ are proprietary and unique to lthe 
Petitioner], and thus, by their very nature are distinct and uncommon to the particular industry and 
can only be gained through prior experience with the company:· The Petitioner further states: 
"this proprietary 'know-how' is crucial to its competitiveness in the marketplace and is how it 
differentiates itself within the industry.'' 
However, the Petitioner's evidence is not sutTicient to establish that the Beneficiary possesses 
knowledge that is either special or advanced. As noted in the memorandum, the "characteristics" 
listed by the Petitioner are only "factors that USCIS may consider when determining whether a 
beneficiary's knowledge is specialized." !d. The memorandum emphasizes that .. ultimately , it is the 
weight and type of evidence that establishes whether the beneticiary possesses specialized 
knowledge.'' !d. at 13. Thus, for example, while the Beneficiary may be filling a role beneficial to 
the Petitioner's competitiveness in the marketplace. this characteristic does not necessarily establish 
specialized knowledge . 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats the prior claim that the Beneficiary ''has been instrumental to the 
development and improvement of [the company's] methodologies, processes. and procedures." The 
Petitioner cites previously submitted letters which the Director found ro be vague and unsupported. 
On appeaL the Petitioner provides no further corroboration and no additional details regarding the 
Beneficiary's specific contributions. 
The Petitioner refers to "the advanced certifications [the Beneficiary] has achieved" from 
but as noted above, distinguishes between Certified Administrators and Certified 
Advanced Administrators; the Beneticiary holds only the lower level of ce11itication. The Petitioner 
cites no support for the claim that the Beneficiary holds "advanced certifications,·· relying instead on 
the presumption that any certification is inherently demonstrative of advanced knowledge. 
.
Matter (if A-US LLC 
The Petitioner states that "the denial lacks any analysis of the certification information that 
was provided. This shows that USCIS cherry-picked the evidence.'' The submitted inf(xmation 
consists of two two-page documents describing the ce1iitication process t(n two products. 
Each training session involved "a five day, hands-on workshop'' culminating in "'a certification 
project, a presentation, and an exam.'' Certitication acknowledges "competency" in the use of the 
products. The documents further state that · Product Certification is designed tor 
professionals with prior knowledge of administration who want to master administration 
of the Contract Management objects. and learn how Contract Management applies to 
each stage ofthe lifecycle." Given this description, the training appears to represent an introduction 
to the company's products rather than a distinct or uncommon level of knowledge of those products. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's "work has earned him a reputation with clients as a 
'trusted advisor,' which has greatly enhanced [the Petitioner's] image . He has also significantly 
enhanced the [Petitioner's] productivity, competitiveness and financial position by helping to 
develop and improve the company's methodologies , processes, and best practices." These are not 
statements of subjective opinion , but claims of objective fact which are amenable to documentary 
support. The Petitioner submits no evidence from customers to establish how the Rcneficiary's 
work has affected his reputation with clients. The Petitioner also does not document the 
Beneficiary's effect on the company's productivity and competitiveness. 
The Petitioner has not substantiated its claim that the Beneficiary has enhanced its financial position. 
The raw numbers on the tax returns of the Petitioner's Colombian affiliate indicate a rise in gross 
revenues each year between 2012 and 2015 , but from 2013 onward this increase disappears vvhen 
corrected for inflation . When converted into U.S . dollars at the exchange rates in effect at the end of 
each calendar year , the Colombian company ' s annual gross revenues declined by about 2% from 
2013 to 2015. The U.S. company's annual gross receipts declined from $607.686 in 2012 to 
$27,787 in 2015. The Beneficiary worked for the Petitioner's atliliate in Brazil in 2015. but the 
Petitioner did not provide financial documentation tl·om that affiliate. 
The record shows that the Beneficiary has long experience working with technically complex 
material, but the Petitioner has not shown the Beneticiary·s knowledge to he distinct or uncommon 
in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the pmiicular industry. The 
Petitioner also has not established that the Beneficiary's expertise in the organization's processes 
and procedures is greatly developed or further along in progress . complexity, and understanding in 
comparison to other workers in the employer's operations. It is not sufficient to observe that the 
Beneficiary has worked tor the company tor over ten years. and received several promotions during 
that time. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. Therefore. 
we cannot find that his employment abroad involved specialized knowledge. The Beneficiary's 
intended employment in the United States is essentially identical to the work he performed abroad. 
so we also find that his proposed U.S. employment will not involve specialized knowledge . 
9 
.
Matter of A-US LLC 
III. OFFSITE EMPLOYMENT 
The Petitioner has stated that the Beneficiary will work primarily at its customers' sites. 2 If a 
petitioner seeks to station a beneficiary primarily at the worksite of an unaffiliated employer. then 
the petitioner must show that it will principally control and supervise the beneficiary. The placement 
must be to provide a product or service requiring specialized knowledge specific to the petitioner. 
rather than an atTangement to provide labor for hire tor the unaffiliated employer. See section 
214(c)(2)(F) of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(F). 
The Petitioner asserted that it has previously relied on "an offshore team employed by our 
Colombian afliliate," and that the Beneficiary "will be instrumental in the implementation of our 
new business model based on offering services in the U.S. market with a local team:· The Petitioner 
also stated that it "will maintain control over [the Beneficiary] and the work he does. [The 
Beneficiary] will be supervised, controlled , and directed by the Practice Director ... in the U.S. 
office ." That practice director was the Petitioner's only U.S. employee at the time of filing. although 
the Petitioner expects to have about 11 employees by December 2018 . 
The Petitioner stated that its "complex, large-scale implementation projects ... can only be 
performed on a client's premises. Project teams must have access to the client's tools and systems to 
effectively configure, customize, integrate, and deploy the software solution:· The Petitioner, 
however, has also indicated that the Beneficiary previously worked on projects for clients in the 
United States and Canada, apparently while he was stationed in Colombia. Furthermore. if the 
Beneficiary would be one of only two U.S. employees , it is not clear what the Petitioner meant by 
having "project teams " onsite . 
Later, the Petitioner stated that it integrates ''third-party products and services ... into the solutions 
that it provides its clients." The Petitioner showed a seven-column chart. identifying six ditTercnt 
third-party providers including and and stated that the Beneficiary 
would ''blend 
the implementation of complex [third-party] solutions ... with [the Petitioner's] know how and IP." 
Regarding the Petitioner's control of the Beneficiary's work. the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary and the practice director will meet weekly ''to review key projects and project 
indicators" and "to prepare the weekly plan.'' The Petitioner also stated that the Beneliciary ··will 
receive 
bi-annual performance reviews'' to ensure adherence to the Petitioner's "competency 
assurance model. .. 
2 As the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that the otfered U.S. position 
is in a specialized knowledge capacity. it was not necessary tlx the Director to make a separate finding regarding the 
nature of the Beneficiary's off-site employment. However. as the Director discussed this issue at length in the denial 
notice, we will address it here. 
10 
Matter(~( A-US LLC 
The Petitioner submitted a template "Consulting Services Agreement:· containing the provision that 
"Company and Consultant are each independent contractors .... Each Party shall be responsible for 
the acts of its own employees as well as for the compensation ... [of] its own employees ... 
In the denial decision. the Director noted the Petitioner's minimal staffing at the time of filing. and 
stated that the Petitioner had not corroborated its assertions regarding the nature of the Beneficiary· s 
proposed ofTsite work. The Director also held that an unsigned template consulting agreement had 
no evidentiary value on the question. The Director also found that the Petitioner had not established 
that the Beneficiary's proposed otlsite work would involve specialized knmvledgc. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary ··v,:ill not be tilling personnel needs in the 
clients' regular business operations. Rather ... [the Beneficiary J will provide Cloud transformation 
services to the clients using [the Petitioner's] proprietary methodologies. processes. and best practice 
framework." The Petitioner states that the evidence of record otTers no support for the Director's 
contrary finding. 
Review ofthe record supports the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary's offsite work relates to 
configuring the Petitioner's methodologies to suit each customer's needs. rather than performing the 
customer's work while only nominally employed by the Petitioner. It is true that the Petitioner had 
only one employee at the time of filing. but that employee \Vould have authority over the 
Beneficiary. 
At the same time, the finding stands that the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge. Therefore. the Petitioner has not met the other prong regarding offsite 
employment, because the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's offsite work would involve 
specialized knowledge of the Petitioner's products or processes. As a result. we withdraw the 
Director's conclusion that the Beneficiary would essentially be working for the customers rather 
than for the Petitioner, but not the overall finding that the Petitioner has not met all the requirements 
concerning offsite employment. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. or that the 
Beneficiary's placement at the worksite of an unaftiliated employer is in connection with the 
provision of a product or service requiring specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning 
employer. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter (?fA-US LLC, ID# 707064 (AAO Nov. 24. 2017) 
11