dismissed L-1B Case: Cloud Software

.
MATTER OF A-A- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 13,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-I29, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a cloud software company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
DevOps Engineer" under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(I5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ IIOI(a)(l5)(L). The L-IB 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 Beneficia,ry possesses specialized knowledge and has been employed 
abroad, and will be employed in the United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. The 
Director also determined that the Petitioner had not established the Beneficiary ' s eligibility for L-IB 
employment at an unaffiliated employer's worksite. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not adjudicate the petition using the 
preponderance of evidence standard and did not follow the guidance set out in a U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services' (USCIS) L-IB adjudications policy memorandum.' The Petitioner contends 
that the Director did not examine all the documentation submitted and thus her decision was based 
on erroneous conclusions of fact. 
Upon de novo review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-I nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must have 
employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, 
for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for admission into 
the United States. Section 10l(a)(l5)(L) ofthe Act. In addition, the Beneficiary must seek to enter the 
1 
The Petitioner is referring to USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111 , L-IB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), 
https://www,uscis .gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 
Matter of A-A- LLC 
United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary 
or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. !d. 
The relevant statute defines specialized knowledge as a special knowledge of the company product and 
its application in international markets or an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures 
ofthe company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). Our regulations further 
define specialized knowledge as: 
[S]pecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization's 
product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management or other interests and its 
application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in 
the organization's processes and procedures. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
An individual L-1 B petition must be accompanied by evidence that: the beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a position that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge for at least one 
continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition; evidence that the beneficiary's 
prior education, training, and employment qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the 
United States; and a detailed description of the services to be performed in a specialized knowledge 
capacity in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary has knowledge that is special or advanced compared to other similarly experienced 
workers in the computer and technology fields, or that the Beneficiary's foreign position and 
proposed U.S. position require such special or advanced 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 he has been employed abroad and would be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
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, a 
beneficiary is deemed 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. 
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 
2 
.
Matter of A-A- LLC 
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 advanc.ed, and that the 
beneficiary's position requires such knowledge.2 
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 states that it specializes in a multi-component, distributed software 
system designed to optimize the work and increase the productivity of software engineers building 
cloud applications. 3 The Petitioner claims that it has accumulated an advanced level of knowledge 
of Open Source (with' in the 1 and 
that it is "a member of the working group of 12 experts undertaking preparation of a certification 
program for engineers and DevOps engineers."4 The Petitioner also 
notes that its team has participated in meetups and workshops, claims that it was the first company to 
launch interactive training, and states that it has entered into joint projects and 
partnerships with and other compames. 
The Petitioner states that it "has been working with and its ecosystem of products to 
create infrastructure for software development similar to industrial assembly lines. The Petitioner 
asserts that "Open Source ' is complex and unique and that "knowledge of this 
product should be classified as advanced and special." The Petitioner notes that is 
rapidly growing, continuously evolving and includes large-scale components, and requires 
complicated tools that allow it to be integrated with the underlying cloud-native infrastructure, 
storage systems, databases, continuous integration tools, and other third-party services. The 
2 Although some aspects of the "special" and "advanced" knowledge definitions may overlap, we will address each 
element individually. 
3 The Petitioner further describes as a Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) system deployed on top of 
lower-level cloud software (Infrastructure-as-a-Service (laaS). The Petitioner adds that this platform introduces the 
concept of developing, running, and managing cloud applications using infrastructure with pre-configured settings which 
addresses productivity, scalability, security, high availability, and other production requirements. 
4 The record includes a letter from the indicating the Petitioner had been a member since 
2015, and had provided speakers for conferences. The letter refers to another individual. The 
Petitioner does not include evidence that this Beneficiary \contributed to the certification 
and standards. 
3 
.
Matter of A-A- LLC 
Petitioner indicates that it currently uses the commercial distribution of 
actively working with four such distributions. 
and 1s 
We recognize that the Petitioner specializes in a relatively new technology; however, the Petitioner 
must still establish that specialization in this technology requires the Beneficiary, as a 
DevOps Engineer, to possess knowledge that is not generally known in the industry and 
cannot be easily transferred to other engineers who are familiar with cloud technologies; or, that it 
has created specific tools, methodologies , and processes, that are distinctly different than the tools, 
methodologies, processes used by other companies in relation to The Petitioner has 
not done so here. 
Regarding the Beneficiary, the Petitioner asserts that he possesses both special and advanced 
knowledge, expla~ning that he is one of the very few software developers worldwide possessing: 
i) advanced knowledge of Open Source the internal interaction, 
patterns and connections between the components of Open Source ii) 
advanced knowledge of security in Open Source and containers used 
by Open Source , iii) competencies sufficient to provide commercial 
training in Open Source deployment and operation for DevOps 
Engineers. 
The record includes numerous documents, some of which the Petitioner· has submitted or referenced 
multiple times. Although we will not mention each document in our analysis, we have reviewed 
each one. 
A. Special 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. 
To demonstrate that the Beneficiary ' s knowledge is distinct and uncommon, the Petitioner indicated 
that the Beneficiary had 2.5 years of continuous experience with Open Source and 
asserted that this experience places him among the top 1 00 to 200 Open Source 
experts in the world. The Petitioner also asserted that the commercial distribution of 
and the design and deployment of Open Source are distinguishable and that although 
there are several thousand engineers who understand the technology, only 700 
software engineers worldwide have experience in Open Source The Petitioner 
added that the Beneficiary "is one of fewer than experts worldwide that provide commercial 
training in Open Source deployment and operation for DevOps Engineers." The 
Petitioner also claimed that the Beneficiary participated in building and configuring one of the 
4 
.
Matter of A-A- LLC 
world's largest production 
deployment. 5 · 
deployments, but does not further identify the specific 
The Petitioner further claimed that the Beneficiary 
"took part in creating an alternative'' to an 
automation software used to deploy and noted that he published a paper in the field 
of automating Open Source and integrating it with third-party products, among other 
papers. Although the Petitioner references the Beneficiary's participation in the creation of this 
alternative software, the Beneficiary's job duties as described in the record do not 
reference the use of the software in his position with either the U.S. or foreign entity. 
The Petitioner's estimate of the number of experts in the field is not supported with 
probative evidence. The lists a number of members, at the platinum and 
gold level , in total), as well as at the the Petitioner's membership level. See 
The Petitioner also notes that Open Source is the 
open source product in terms of innovation and release velocity. This appears to 
undermine the Petitioner's claim that there are only ten companies with a considerable pool of 
experts. The Petitioner does not provide it~ research or any other objective standards it 
used to reach its conclusions. Although the Petitioner repeatedly states that there are a limited 
number of software engineers with knowledge of Open Source repetition of a claim, 
without probative evidence to support the clai·m, is insufficient. 
The Petitioner derives its estimate that there are only specialists who provide commercial 
trammg in by initially noting that "[a]ccording to [its] assessment, there are fewer 
than ten professional services companies globally that have managed to build considerable pools of 
experts." And then adding, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 
that fewer than half of these companies advertise training courses, and most employ fewer than 20 
software developers working on and that only four or five consultants at each 
company have sufficient knowledge to provide training in Open Source deployment 
and operation.6 The Petitioner also indicated that it had launched an interactive 
training platform, that the Beneficiary had deyeloped approximately 45 percent of the training 
courses for the platform, and that he supervises the process of developing new ones. However, the 
Beneficiary's resume does not reference his contributions to creating training materials. 
The record is deficient in evidence substantiating the Petitioner's claim regarding the number of 
training courses available on the product and does not include probative evidence 
establishing that there are a limited number of individuals who can provide training on Open Source 
5 The record includes copies of several agreements between the Petitioner and other companies for the Petitioner's 
services, including statements of work. These agreements do not include sufficient information to establish that the 
Beneficiary's work pursuant to these agreements, if any, involved special or advanced knowledge. 
6 The Petitioner also noted in its initial letter in support that the total number of 
exceed 200 and that fewer than specialists are able to provide technical training in 
DevOps engineers. 
5 
specialists, did not 
deployment for 
.
Matter of A-A- LLC 
The Petitioner acknowledges there are a number of companies that participate in the 
and asserts that this product is the second largest open source product; 
thus it is reasonable to believe that there are a number of training programs available and trainers 
that have knowledge similar to the Beneficiary. Even if the Beneficiary contributed to the 
Petitioner's involvement in commercial training programs, such involvement does not necessarily 
lead to a conclusion that the Beneficiary possesses special knowledge. Without additional detait 
regarding the training materials and the Beneficiary's involvement, we cannot conclude that the 
Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is uncommon or distinct from others. 
The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary is one of several employees at the foreign entity who 
had performed multiple standard and custom installations for internal purposes and 
for enterprise customers and that the Beneficiary "possesses specialized knowledge normally gained 
only through substantial experience of working with a company deeply specialized m 
and cloud." The Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary's specific duties include: 
Architecture design - 10 percent 
Proof of Concept deployment of - 20 percent 
Production deployment of - 25 percent 
Adapt IaaS platforms to work with - 5 percent 
Collect initial requirements from clients and conduct a preliminary estimation of the 
amount of work to be performed at the pre-sale stage - 1 0' percent 
security - 15 percent 
Training activities - 15 percent 
The Petitioner also included a lengthy narrative providing examples of the work the Beneficiary 
performed or will perform as part of each of the duties above. The Petitioner asserted that_it is the 
Beneficiary's experience performing installations for two years that resulted in 
knowledge that is uncommon in the industry. To emphasize that the Beneficiary's knowledge of the 
Petitioner's services is distinct and uncommon, the Petitioner added, in response to the Director's 
RFE, that the Beneficiary was its first DevOps Engineer and that the "Beneficiary 
laid the foundation for the company-wide development of knowledge in Open Source 
with a focus on DevOps operations." The Petitioner also referenced a joint project with 
and the Beneficiary's role in the project and a joint partnership with and the 
Beneficiary's participation in three projects with 
However, the actual duties described appear to be those of a senior systems/software engineering 
position. The Petitioner did not sufficiently explain the difference, if any, between the duties of a 
system/software engineer with experience in and its DevOps engineer with similar 
experience. The Petitioner also does not sufficiently articulate the specific nature of the knowledge 
and training required to perform the deployment of Open Source technology using its 
tools and methodologies. That is, the record demonstrates the Beneficiary's experience in deploying 
the platform and related software; however, the record does not establish that the 
knowledge gained while working at the foreign entity includes knowledge that is specific to the 
6 
.
Matter of A-A- LLC 
petitiOning entity's organization. For example, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient detail 
regarding its specific services in providing installations to demonstrate that its 
services are substantially different or more complex than the services provided by other companies 
in relation to the product. Although the Petitioner referenced the development of 
software it dev~loped for it did not provide sufficient detail to explain how 
this particular application shortcut differs significantly from, or is more complex than, those created 
and used by other Open Source companies and systems or software engineers who 
create tools to automate the integration of the platform with other infrastructures as a 
service.- The Petitioner's lengthy narrative regarding the Beneficiary's duties at the foreign entity 
and the U.S. entity also does not reference his use of this software in deploying and integrating 
We note the Petitioner's assertion that it conducted an online search for a DevOps 
Engineer and engaged a staffing agency to locate applicants for this position. The Petitioner noted 
that the online search resulted in 305 profiles of these specialists in the United States, but that all of 
the DevOps engineers had a very basic level of knowledge of Open Source and thus 
did not match the skillset required to work at the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner does not detail 
their deficiencies or sufficiently explain whether they could be trained or how long it would take to 
train these specific applicants. Additionally, although the Petitioner asserts that it provided evidence 
of this search, the record includes a one-page sheet from a job website listing titles of positions but 
with no information regarding potential applicants. Similarly, the Petitioner indicated that it 
interviewed 20 candidates provided by a staffing company but that only one individual partly 
matched their requirements and that his experience was not in DevOps but rather in cloud-native 
software development. The Petitioner does not explain or otherwise s~bstantiate why this individual 
or others could not be trained to perform DevOps duties. 
The record shows that the Beneficiary was hired as a software engineer and later reassigned to 
services when the Petitioner began working on that platform. The evidence does not 
support the Petitioner's claims that the Beneficiary acquired his specialized knowledge through his 
experience with the Petitioner's products, but rather that his work experience developed his 
knowledge of this third party product. The Petitioner claimed that it would take "between 5 to 7 
years to teach an outsider to perform the job duties [the Beneficiary] performs today," and that "it 
can take anywhere between 8 to 10 months to acquire the specialized knowledge and skills necessary 
to work with Open Source alone." However, the Petitioner does not offer a cogent 
explanation of how it arrived at these numbers. For example, the Petitioner does not qualify what it 
means by "outsider" and whether this includes someone with no systems/software engineering 
knowledge. Any company performing work with the technology would reasonably 
require its employees to have certain system or software engineering skills, including knowledge of 
cloud technology. 
The Petitioner also does not distinguish its services or methodologies from those of other companies 
within this industry. The Petitioner does not identify what is specific to its methodology or process 
that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to that found within this industry and thus would require 
.
Matter of A-A- LLC 
lengthy training at the petitioning organization. The record does not include probative evidence that 
it would take between 8 to 10 months to acquire the knowledge and skills to specifically work with 
the Open Source platform as claimed by the Petitioner. 
We note, for example, that among the several different Open Source. training 
programs currently available in the United States, the website offers 
training for beginners which requires about 20-30 hours of training for an individual with a 
background in software engineering and an additional 40-50 hours for developers. See 
(last visited July 12, 2017). Thus, it appears 
that work in the Open Source domain does not require specialized knowledge of the 
Petitioner's services or tools but can be acquired by a similarly experienced systems/software 
engineer within a reasonable amount of time. 
We observe further that the Petitioner initially stated that it would require only two months to train a 
U.S. software engineer in Belarus to obtain the initial knowledge · of this platform for U.S. 
employment with the Petitioner. This undermines its claim that it would take between 8 to 10 
months to acquire knowledge and skills to work on its Open Source services. The 
record does not support the Petitioner's claim that there are a limited number of systems/software 
engineers who perforin deployment, integration, and maintenance of Open Source 
technology or that the use of the Petitioner's methodologies, if any, requires extensive training to 
deploy in international markets. , 
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 a specific product. However, the record lacks probative 
evidence demonstrating that extensive training is required to perform the duties it claims are 
different from that of other engineers, either within or outside of the organization. While there likely 
are no employees with the exact same knowledge the Beneficiary possesses, the record does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge is in fact significantly different from that generally 
held by professionals in the Petitioner's industry, or that it would require up to a full year or longer 
to acquire the knowledge needed for the position. 
A petitioner must establish that it meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In 
other words, a petitioner must show that what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. 
To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under the preponderance standard, we consider 
not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of 
the evidence. !d. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). For the foregoing 
reasons, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary, more likely than not, possesses special 
knowledge of the company's services and their application in international markets. 
8 
.
Matter of A-A- LLC 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced when compared with its 
other employees, both at the foreign entity and in the United States. 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. 
To differentiate the Beneficiary's knowledge from other employees within the petitioning 
organization we must review the duties of those employees in similar positions. The Petitioner 
submitted the foreign entity's organizational chart 
depicting the Beneficiary' s position in the 
research and development department. The Beneficiary is one of ten employees designated as 
DevOps Engineers. The department includes an additional three employees identified as 
Engineers. The record also includes a list of the employees in this department 
identifying their education and salary. A separate list identifies the duties of the foreign entity' s 
employees in this department. The listed duties generally identify the different technologies , 
applications, and platforms the employees work with. Neither list indicates when the employees 
were hired or how long they have been employed within this department. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner stated that it had developed an advanced level of 
Open Source knowledge within the company and "the Beneficiary played a key role 
in developing this knowledge." The Petitioner noted that it participated in frequent meetups and 
workshops, that the Beneficiary is a frequent speaker at industry-leading conferences, and that he has 
provided trainings to several major companies. The Petitioner does not submit probative evidence 
supporting these claims. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's knowledge was instrumental in 
obtaining a number of contracts with major companies. However, obtaining contracts based on the 
qualifications of employees is a practice of most companies. 
The Petitioner also listed nine of the foreign entity' s DevOps engineers and asserts 
that only the Beneficiary and one other DevOps engineer possess an "Advanced" level of knowledge 
of Open Source The Petitioner describes the remaining seven employees as having 
a "Medium" level of knowledge of Open Source and as deficient in knowledge of 
security and providing training. The Petitioner does not advise on how it determined the seven 
employees have only a medium level of knowledge when compared to the Beneficiary. For 
example, the Petitioner does not compare the length of time these employees have been with the 
company or otherwise explain why it ascertained their knowledge was at an intermediate level. 
Likewise, the Petitioner does not explain how the DevOps engineers' knowledge of applications , 
tools, and ,technology· is distinguishable ; rather, all the DevOps engineers appear to participate in 
work relating to Open Source 
9 
.
Matter of A-A- LLC 
Further, the Petitioner did not explain why the seven employees with "medium" knowledge did not 
receive or have access to security knowledge and providing training experience. The fact that the 
petitioning organization delegates limited responsibilities to some of its engineers and assigns more 
responsibilities to others does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special or advanced 
knowledge or that he was employed in a position involving special or advanced knowledge . 
Although the Petition"er asserts that the Beneficiary's knowledge is greatly developed or further 
along in progress, complexity, and understanding than that generally found within the Petitioner (or 
the foreign entity), it does not provide the underlying basis for this claim. The record does not 
include sufficient evidence to conclude that the Beneficiary's knowledge is more advanced than the 
foreign entity's other DevOps engineers. 
Although we recognize that the other DevOps engineers ,may focus on different portions of the 
services, their knowledge of the applications and platforms, as well as the petitioning 
organization's processes, procedures, tools, and methodologies when configuring, integrating, and 
maintaining the product would likely be similar. The Petitioner has not submitted 
probative evidence distinguishing the Beneficiary 's .experience from other similarly employed 
engineers. The Petitioner has not sufficiently demon~trated that the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
more advanced than its employees in similar positions. 
The Petitioner notes that Open Source was new when the Beneficiary was assigned 
to this technology and that there was no Open Source training available. Thus, he 
acquired his knowledge through practice. However, the Petitioner does not specifically identify 
when the Beneficiary's "practice" was sufficient to develop into specialized knowledge. Thus, it is 
not possible to ascertain from the record, when the Petitioner is claiming that the Beneficiary 's 
knowledge of the Petitioner 's processes, procedures, tools, and services as they relate to the 
technology became more advanced than other engineers in general, or other DevOps 
engineers within its employ. Accordingly, the record is also insufficient in establishing that the 
Beneficiary's position involved advanced knowledge of the Petitioner's processes, procedures, and 
services for at least one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a 
specialized knowledge employee consistent with the USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111 , 
L-IB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy­
memoranda. However, th~ Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is either special or advanced. While the Beneficiary may fill a 
role beneficial to the Petitioner's competitiveness in the marketplace, this characteristic alone is not 
probative of his specialized knowledge. As noted in the memorandum, the "characteristics" listed by 
the Petitioner are only "factors that USC IS 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 beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge." /d. at 
13. It is clear that the Petitioner considers the Beneficiary a valuable employee who excels at his 
position. However, the record does not sufficiently distinguish the Beneficiary 's knowledge from 
that of other similarly employed workers within the petitioning organization or within the 
10 
Matter of A-A- LLC 
Petitioner's industry. For the foregoing reasons, the record the record does not establish that the 
~eneficiary possesses special or advanced knowledge. 
C. Visa Reform Act 
Finally, the Director determined that the Beneficiary's proposed off-site assignment at the worksite 
of an unaffiliated employer was not in compliance with the terms. of the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 
2004 (Visa Reform Act). The Visa Reform Act requires, among other things, that any prospective 
L-1 B beneficiary who will be primarily located at the worksite of an unaffiliated employer must be: 
(1) controlled and supervised principally by the petitioning employer or a qualifying organization; 
and (2) provided in connection with the provision of products or services for which specialized 
knowledge specific to the petition employer is required. See section 214(c)(2)(F) ofthe Act. 
As the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge as required by 
this visa classification, we do not need to discuss Visa Reform Act issues pursuant to section 
214(a)(2)(F) of the Act. Accordingly, we do not reach the question of whether the Beneficiary's 
work is at an unaffiliated employer's worksite or whether that work requires specialized knowledge. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. As the evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge, we also cannot conclude that he has been employed abroad and would be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-A- LLC, ID# 436091 (AAO July 13, 2017) 
1 1