dismissed L-1B Case: Computer Technology

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-C-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 19, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer technology consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a analyst under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(l5)(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 Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, that he has been employed 
abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge, or that he will be employed in a specialized 
knowledge capacity in the United States. The Director further found that the Beneficiary's assignment 
to the worksite of an unaffiliated employer would not be in compliance the provisions of the L-1 Visa 
Reform Act, which prohibits L-1 B nonimmigrants from providing "labor for hire." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director misapplied the law based on an incomplete review 
and understanding of the Petitioner's claims, and reached a decision that is inconsistent with the 
record. The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge of ' 
software that is unique within the company and within the industry at large. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the Beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a specialized knowledge capacity. !d. 
The law states that 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 
.
Matter of P-C-, Inc. 
product and its application in international markets or has an advanced level of knowledge of processes 
and procedures ofthe company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). 
Specialized knowledge is also defined as knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning 
organization's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and its 
application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the 
organization's processes and procedures. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
An individual L-1 B classification petition must be accompanied by evidence that: (1) the petitioner 
and the foreign employer of the beneficiary are qualifying organizations; (2) 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; (3) the 
beneficiary is coming to work in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer; and ( 4) the beneficiary· s prior 
education, training and employment qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the United 
States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the Beneficiary's duties are typical of a worker 
with a computer engineering background and the Petitioner had not established that his knowledge 
of the Petitioner's products, processes, or methodologies is truly distinct or uncommon compared to 
other similarly employed workers in the industry or advanced compared to other workers in the 
company who also work with The Director further found that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it would be difficult for similarly employed workers in the industry to acquire any 
company-specific knowledge the Beneficiary possesses, noting that the Petitioner did not show that 
he had completed extensive training within its group of companies. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director did not consider all relevant evidence in 
reaching her decision and did not appear to fully understand the nature of the claimed specialized 
knowledge despite the Petitioner's explanations. The Petitioner contests the Director's finding that 
its submissions did not describe the claimed specialized knowledge with specificity or explain how 
such knowledge is gained within the organization. It maintains that the totality of the evidence 
establishes that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge because his knowledge of 
software is advanced both within the company and within the industry. The Petitioner also 
claims that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a specialized knowledge employee consistent 
with guidance provided in USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-011 L L-IB Adjudications Policy 
(Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 
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 in a position 
involving specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
2 
.
Matter of P-C-, Inc. 
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. 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 ofthe processes and procedures ofthe company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act. 
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, 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 
individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge of 
software gained through training and 12 years of professional experience using the software. 
including approximately 9.5 years gained with its Indian parent company. 
A. Background 
The Petitioner's parent company is an information technology firm with consulting competencies in a 
number of industries and technologies, including technologies. The Petitioner explained that 
an unrelated entity, develops software for 
manufacturing companies. initially built a software product called using 
and relational database. In 2007, 
renamed its core product suite from to Enterprise Application or 
The Petitioner explained that the foreign entity has long-standing contractual relationships with both 
and "has consistently worked on and its applications since the initial 
version of and "is one of the few companies in existence that deeply understands the 
customization and development of The Petitioner stated that its foreign parent has 
worked on "multiple versions, multiple technological ecosystems, multiple customizations, 
its integrations with multiple third party software and applications" all of which gave the foreign 
entity a "capability edge that very few companies in the world can match.'' 
The Beneficiary has worked for the foreign entity as a Consultant since March 2010 
(approximately seven years), and previously held the position of software engineer from July 2004 
until January 
2007, when he was initially trained on and assigned to projects. He worked 
as a software engineer with two unrelated employers between 2007 and 2010, where his assignments 
also required him to use The Petitioner emphasized that he has worked with multiple versions 
of and for 18 customers worldwide, and has experience with implementation, 
consulting, application development, integration, and support services across different industries. 
3 
.
Matter of P-C-, Inc. 
The Petitioner signed a Technical Services Agreement with in 2007, under which it 
provides development and support services to and its clients in the United States. The 
Petitioner stated that it has been providing and to customers in the U.S. 
market since 1999. The Petitioner seeks to transfer the Beneficiary to the United States as a 
Analyst and will assign him to a client worksite where he would be "defining, developing. 
integrating and implementing solutions to their existing systems." 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner's primary claim is that the Beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge of 
software in comparison to that found in the industry at large and in comparison to other professionals 
within its organization, including those who work with 
Determinations concerning "advanced knowledge" require review of a beneficiary's knowledge of 
the specific petitioning organization's processes and procedures. A petitioner may meet its burden 
through evidence that a given beneficiary has knowledge of or 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. Also, the petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that a beneficiary's 
knowledge is not commonly held throughout the particular industry and cannot be easily imparted 
from one person to another. 
Here, the Petitioner has neither claimed nor documented that the Beneficiary has advanced 
knowledge of company-specific processes or procedures, nor has it identified any specific processes 
or procedures that it has adopted for the implementation of software that would differentiate it 
from other companies that offer consulting services. Rather, his claimed advanced 
knowledge relates to the third-party software product and its integration with other third-
party software products. While the Beneficiary may have advanced knowledge of this product based 
on his 12 years of professional experience gained with the Petitioner's foreign parent company and 
two unrelated entities, this is not the type of "advanced knowledge" contemplated by the statutory 
definition of "specialized knowledge." 
Absent evidence that the Petitioner has actually developed internal processes and procedures for 
implementing projects that are particularly complex such that they could not be readily 
imparted to a consultant from outside the company, the Petitioner has not established the basis 
for an 
"advanced knowledge" claim. 
C. Special Knowledge 
Determining whether a beneficiary has "special knowledge" requires review of a given beneficiary's 
knowledge of how the petitioning organization manufactures, produces, or develops its products, 
services, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. Because "special 
knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its 
4 
.
Matter of P-C-, Inc. 
application in international markets, a 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. As with advanced knowledge, knowledge 
that is commonly held throughout a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one 
person to another is not considered specialized. 
Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge of software that is 
uncommon in the industry and quite rare within the Petitioner's organization. As noted, 
is not the Petitioner's product but rather a product developed by and based on the 
programming language. While the Petitioner need not establish that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is proprietary or unique, it bears the burden of showing how his knowledge of this third­
party software qualifies as distinct or uncommon in comparison to others. The Petitioner draws 
comparisons based on both the foreign entity's consulting capabilities compared to the 
industry at large, and based on the Beneficiary's own professional experience working with the 
product relative to other employees in the company. 
First, the Petitioner emphasizes that its foreign parent has been working with and 
since the development of predecessor product, noting that as a result of this 
history, its group of companies has a "capability edge that very few companies in the world can 
match." 1 While the foreign entity has been providing and consulting services 
to its clients over a significant period of time, the record does not contain sufficient support for its 
claim that it is one of few companies in the world that can provide these services, or that it has 
developed an unmatched body of institutional knowledge of this third-party product that should be 
considered "special knowledge." The Petitioner does not identify any particular services it 
provides that are different or uncommon in the industry, or explain how the foreign entity's 
experience with "multiple versions, multiple technological ecosystems, multiple customizations'' 
differentiate its services to the extent where special knowledge specific to the petitioning company 
would reasonably be required to implement software for one of its clients. 
Later, in response to the Director's request that the Petitioner submit evidence to show how the 
Beneficiary's knowledge differs from that generally found in the industry, the Petitioner responded 
that "it is impossible ... to submit evidence of the qualifications of every single IT worker in the 
industry." Rather than try to differentiate its services from those provided by other 
consulting companies, the Petitioner stated that "the fact that the Beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge is so unique even within a large global IT organization is evidence that his knowledge is 
rare within the IT field at large." However, this explanation does not distinguish any aspect of the 
foreign entity's services from those generally offered in the industry and speaks more to the 
size of its consulting practice than to its actual expertise. In fact, given the Petitioner"s 
emphasis on the foreign company's unmatched capabilities in providing consulting 
services, it seems incongruous for the Petitioner to also claim that the Beneficiary is practically the 
1 The public website for includes a list of its 86 Global Network Partners. Neither the Petitioner nor its 
foreign parent company are listed among these partners. See www. (last accessed on October 4, 
2017). 
.
Matter of P-C-, Inc. 
only employee in the foreign company who actually possesses the knowledge required to provide 
such services. 
The Petitioner notes that, as a result of his 12 years of work experience, the Beneficiary has "special, 
advanced, sophisticated, complex knowledge of the technology and that his "adroit 
knowledge of is not generally available in the marketplace" or "readily transferable to another 
individuaL" The record shows that the Beneficiary completed a three-month training program in 
and upon joining the foreign company. The Petitioner emphasizes that 
cannot be learned at a university and that training is limited to those companies who have access to 
training programs. While may not be the most widely known system, It IS 
reasonable to believe that any consultant, including those outside of the petitioner's group of 
companies, would complete a similar training prior to working with clients. The Petitioner has not 
claimed that it customized the training or that its training conveys skills or knowledge about 
that would not be learned by other professionals. The Petitioner's claim is based 
primarily on the sheer length of the Beneficiary's professional experience with this third-party 
software, as it emphasizes that his knowledge is not shared by other practitioners because it was 
gained "over a period of 12 years" both with the foreign entity and with unrelated employers. 
The Petitioner has made varying claims 
regarding the number of analysts and consultants 
the foreign entity employs in support of its claim that the Beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon 
within Petitioner's group. Initially, the Petitioner stated that only five of its parent company's 
employees "have knowledge of and how to use it" and submitted a chart showing that the 
Beneficiary, as a senior consultant, oversees a team of four people and reports to a Delivery 
Manager, who, in turn reports to the Competency Head for & The Petitioner 
emphasized that the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge of is unique within the company 
because he leads the team, has worked with all modules, and has worked with many 
clients, such that it would take at least five years of exposure to projects to develop equivalent 
knowledge. The Petitioner submitted detailed resumes for the Beneficiary's team members in 
support of its claim that the Beneficiary's knowledge is specialized in comparison. Two ofthe team 
members indicate they have "expert" proficiency in with 4.4 to 5 years of 
experience in these areas, while the other two indicate "professional" proficiency in with 
3 to 4 years of experience. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner provided some additional points of 
comparison, noting that the foreign parent has 1069 employees, 2 of which approximately 750 are 
software professionals. 3 The Petitioner emphasized that only 25 of those workers use but did 
not explain why it previously indicated the size of the foreign entity's consulting practice is 
limited to five employees. The Petitioner again noted that four of those users report to the 
Beneficiary, while three others are employed on the same level as the Beneficiary. The Petitioner 
provided a chart identifying the names, job titles, experience, education leveL and salaries of 
2 The Petitioner indicated in its initial support letter that the foreign entity has 650 employees. 
3 The foreign entity's technical competencies are wide ranging and, based on its organizational chart, include SAP, 
PEGA BPM, Salesforce, Microsoft, Java, eLearning and other areas, in addition to 
.
Matter of P-C-, Inc. 
the foreign entity's team. The team includes three other senior consultants with more than 12 
years of experience and two consultants with over 10 years of experience. While the foreign 
entity's practice is not large and the Beneficiary is one of the most experienced members of 
that practice, these facts are not sufficient to establish that he possesses truly distinct or uncommon 
knowledge of this software beyond what would normally be held by a consultant working 
in this industry. 
The Petitioner 
also distinguishes the Beneficiary's knowledge by noting that its U.S. client provided 
him with a total of 14 days of training in modules which would be required for the U.S. 
assignment at the client's site, but did not establish why these minimal 
training requirements would 
be difficult to provide to another employee with the required proficiency. 
The Petitioner emphasized that it has no specialists among its 18 U .S.-based employees. As 
noted, the Petitioner signed an agreement with to provide support services for its products 
in 2007, nearly 10 years before it filed this petition, and it submitted copies of other contracts in 
which it represents to clients that it is a company with and capabilities. The 
Petitioner apparently chooses to outsource these services to its parent company and temporarily 
transfer foreign employees to the United States as needed to provide on-site services to its clients. 
The Petitioner's business and staffing model may have created a need to rely on foreign employees 
to provide these services; however, that does not lead to a conclusion that the foreign employees 
possess specialized knowledge as defined in the statute and regulations. 
The Petitioner states that it has a time-sensitive need for the transfer and the economic 
inconvenience of training another employee for five years should be considered as a factor in 
determining whether the position requires specialized knowledge. However, the Petitioner must still 
establish that the knowledge itself is different or uncommon. The Petitioner did not establish that 
the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is different from what would be held by a similarly 
experienced consultant 
or that he possesses any company-specific knowledge that could not be 
readily transferred. The Petitioner stated that it would be "unjust" to insist the company "hire an 
untrained individual and spend five years training him in all three modules of ' The Petitioner 
has not supported its assertion that the Beneficiary is one of few people in the industry who 
possesses five years of practical work experience working with software. The record 
does not support the Petitioner's suggestion that the IT industry as a whole lacks specialists. or 
establish that the ability to integrate with other third-party software constitutes specialized 
knowledge specific to the petitioning company. 
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-
1 B Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. However, 
for the reasons already discussed, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish 
that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is either special or advanced. 
While the Beneficiary 
may be filling a role that is beneficial to the Petitioner's competitiveness in the marketplace and the 
Petitioner has a time-sensitive need for the services of a Analyst, these characteristics alone are 
not probative of his specialized knowledge. As noted in the memorandum, the "characteristics" 
.
Matter of P-C-, Inc. 
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 beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge." !d. at 13. 
Although the Petitioner considers the Beneficiary to be a valuable employee who excels at his 
position, it has not sufficiently shown that his knowledge of company processes and procedures is 
advanced compared to other similarly employed workers, or that he possesses special knowledge of 
the third-party software that is significantly different from what is generally held in the 
Petitioner's industry. 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses advanced or special 
knowledge, we need not address whether the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a 
specialized knowledge capacity or whether his employment at the worksite of the unaffiliated 
employer requires specialized knowledge. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-C- Inc., ID# 645621 (AAO Oct. 19, 2017) 
8