dismissed L-1B Case: Data Mining

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 17,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a financial institution, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as a 
"VP; Consultant - Data Mining/Warehousing" under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ I I 01 (a)( 15)(L). The L-1 13 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; has been employed 
abroad as a manager. executive, or in a position involving specialized knowledge; and will be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
On appeaL the Petitioner asserts that the Director's "decision lacks virtually any legal analysis." 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 13 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," tor one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application tor 
admission into the United States. Section 101 (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 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a specialized knowledge capacity. !d. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneliciary'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 rharkets; or (2) an 
"advanced" level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 
214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). A petitioner may establish eligibility by 
.
Maller ofM-L-
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 intemational 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). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is a financial services company, seeking to employ the Beneficiary on its Business 
Intelligence Services Technology Center of Excellence, which provides data and analytics s ervices 
to the Petitioner 's Global Wealth and Investment Management division. The organization's affiliate 
in hired the Benef1ciary for a similar position in 2010, and he transferred to the United 
States under the company's blanket L petition in March 2014. The Beneticiary completed a 
bachelor's degree in computer engineering in 2010 just prior to joining the Petitioner's foreign 
affiliate. 
111. 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 r-ecord did not establish that the Bcneticiary 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 knowfedge. 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 
Under the statute, specialized knowledge consists of either: ( I) 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) 9 f 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 beneficiar y'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 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
Mallet ofM-L-
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. 
In the denial notice, the Director found that the Beneficiary's duties appear to be typical for an 
operations research analyst. and therefore do not evidently involve special or advanced knowledge. 
The Director acknowledged that the Beneficiary's training and experience with the petitioning 
company has made him familiar with the company's "products, policies, processes, methodologies, 
framework, [and] projects," but the Director found that the Petitioner did not specifically describe 
the claimed specialized knowledge or explained "how such knowledge is typically gained within the 
organization. 
Apart from two introductory paragraphs and other references to the denial notice, the Petitioner's 
appellate b~ief is essentially a slightly modified version of a letter that the Petitioner had previously 
submitted in response to a request for evidence. Because most of the brief simply repeats 
information already in the record, the only new substantive argument is the Petitioner's assc11ion that 
the Director did not sufficiently analyze the evidence in the record. The Petitioner repeats prior 
claims but does not directly address the Director's findings about those claims. 
Below, we will discuss the Petitioner's claims in greater detail than the Director did, and in this way 
address the Petitioner's primary concern on appeal. 
The Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's work uses several acronyms and initials: 
• LOB- Lines of Business 
• GWIM - Global Wealth and Investment Management: a component of the Petitioner's 
parent company 
• BI - Business Intelligence: a process of data analysis to support decision-making by 
financial advisors 
• MIDAS - Management Information Decision Analysis System: "a comprehensive Business 
Intelligence (BI) environment that consists of the BI platform, data provisioning streams that 
bring pertinent historical data into the environment, a data warehouse, and access and 
reporting tools for sharing data with business users" 
• BIST- Business Intelligence Services Technology: the parent company's "primary provider 
of management information reporting data and analytics services." The Petitioner stated that 
3 
.
Matler of M-L-
"B IST supports the MIDAS BI platform and performs G WIM data proc ess ing and 
wareho using and BI report ing." 
• COE - Cente r of Excellence: A BIST component "responsib le lor the over sig ht, design, 
development, and impl ementation of strategic, enterpr ise, departmen tal and tactica l reporting 
and banking application so lution s acro ss the G WIM organ ization" 
The Petiti oner discussed the Beneficiary's employment at the Petitione r' s affiliate in 
[Th e Beneficiary] gained specia lized know ledge and experience wit h the MIDAS 
data ware house and led multiple project teams in the delivery of Business Inte lligence 
so lutions for manag emen t r eportin g. . . . Utilizin g MIDAS, [the Beneficiary] . 
provided financial sales, business perfo rmance and regu latory repor ting soluti ons to 
senior management. He gathered LOB reporting requir ements, perfo rmed data 
analy sis and translat ed data into technic al specifications .... 
. . . [The Beneficiar y] developed a strong und ers tandi ng of (the parent compan y's] 
prop rietary processes and the techno-function al requ irements of the Global Wea lth 
and Investment Man ageme nt (GWIM) business. He served as a critical member of 
the BIST COE team and it's [sic] accur ate reporting to business users. As a resu lt of 
his ex tensive experi ence with the company 's proprietary MIDAS data warehouse, 
[the Beneficiary] gained specialized knowledge of [the parent company's GW IM] 
business and substantial exper ience analyz ing the requirement s of the company's 
uniq ue, global busine ss use rs . .. . 
[The Beneficiary] has attained a level of specialized know ledge t!1at is uncommon 
within the [parent compa ny's ] organi zatio n and the fi nancial ser vic es indu stry. In 
fact, [the Beneficiary] is one of a very small number of employees within our enti re 
globa l workforce curren tly capable of successfully tilling thi s pos ition ... in the 
Uni ted States. 
Due to the advanced and unique nature o f [ the Bcneticia ry's] experience and 
knowledge, it would be a difficult and time consumi ng process to imp art an 
equ ivalent level of exper tise to another individual. Bringing in another employe e to 
pertonn the duties of this ... position would require at least 12 months of inten sive 
tra ining on ou r proprietary BI, reportin g a nd query tools as well as the MIDAS 
system before the candidate could achieve the e qu ivalent know ledge and experience 
necessa ry to perform the required positio n responsibilitie s. Understand ing how trade s 
and ot her data flow through our intern al syste m s is a complex and ever changing 
domain where the diagnos is of a probl em relies on prio r ex perience with simi lar 
situations. It takes sig nificant time to acq uire the experience and exposure to real­
world situations required to respond to problems occur ring in time-pre ssured 
enviro nments. 
4 
.
' 
Maller of M-L-
The Petiti oner also stated: . 
[The Benefic iary] was criti cal to [the COE ] initiati ve in and gained 
exten sive expe rien ce using our propriet ary Bl and reporting tools as well as Cognos, 
Tableau and OBIEE . ['I~ he Beneficiar y] has been identifi ed as the onl y s trategic 
resource that can man age the s ustainability and rebui lding of the COE in the Uni ted 
State s. 
The Peti tioner asserte d that the Beneficiary " has highly speciali zed knowledge of our Business 
Intelligenc es Services Techn ology reporting proced ures and interna l trade technologi es, that can 
only be gained through years of extens ive on the job training. " 
The Direc tor adv ised the Petiti oner that the initial statement did not provide enough inform ation to 
show that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. In response, the Petiti oner stated that 
the Beneficiary "was an integra l part" of a "five person team" that "created a key proprie tary tool." 
The Petiti oner described this too l as "a compr ehensive business intellige nce platfom1 that mines 
data, stores it, shares it with key decision-mak ers, and pro vides repor ting to all levels." The 
Petitioner then stat ed that the Beneticiary "helped design and impleme nt the G WIM Bus iness 
Intelligence COE compon ent of the MIDAS platfor m," but it is not clear whether this is the "key 
proprietar y too l" described above. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary is "the most qualified " of "only three emp loyees within our 
company capabl e of successful ly provi ding su bject matter expertise for the MIDAS platform and 
other strategic data management initiatives in the GWIM Business Inte lligence COE." The 
Petitioner added: 
[The Bene ficiary] utilizes his s peciali zed knowledge of the MIDAS platform and the 
internal processes and structure of the GWIM organizatio n. T his knowl edge is 
"spec ial" and "advanced" because it r elate s to specific tech nologies and 
impl ementation tactics, as we ll as the ope rati onal context that is unique to the [pare nt] 
organizat ion. [The Benefici ary] developed this spe ciali zed knowledge ove r seven 
years of service with our company. In those years, he playe d a prim ary role in 
enh anci ng the MID AS platform, lever aged thi s experti se in MIDAS to lead seve ral 
project teams to deliv er business intellig ence so lutions for management reporting , a nd 
.gained an in-depth knowledge of the GWIM organ ization's business, operation s, and 
technology in t he process. Furthermore , [the Beneficiary] is an expert in a varie ty of 
other proprietar y business inte lligence tools, including Cognos, Tableau , and OBIEE. 
Expe rience with these business-critical technolog ies and interna l processe s would be 
impossib le to gain out side of the [parent] orga nization . . .. 
5 
.
Maller (l M-L-
... [The Beneficiary] is one of only tive (5) who have proficiency in business 
intelligence technologies such as the MIDAS platform. Of those five people, [the 
Beneficiary's ] specialized knowledge far exceeds the others' since he has been at the 
forefront of business intelligence initiatives since the Center' s inception in 2008. 
With regard to the last quoted sentence above, the Petitioner had previously stated that "(t]he Center 
of Excellence ... was created ... in 2009." Either way, the Petitioner's foreign aftiliate did not hire 
the Beneficiary until Jun
e 20 
I 0, a month after he graduated from college. Therefore, he was 
demonstrably not involved with the COE at the time of its inception in 2008 or 2009. If he was 
placed at the COE immediately upon his hiring, then it is evident that working in the COE does not 
inherently require special or advanced knowledge, because the Beneticiary could not have attained 
that knowledge before June 20 I 0. 
With respect to the Petitioner's assertion that "only five [employees] have proficiency in business 
intelligence technologies such as the MIDAS platform," an organizational chart in the record shows 
that t
he Petitioner's "Head of Business Intelligence Services and the MIDAS Platfom1" has at least 
15 ·subordinates, including individuals not under the Beneficiary's authority in charge of "MIDAS 
Core Processes," "MIDAS & MIP Applications/Infrastructure," and the "MIDAS Helpdesk & User 
Training." 
The Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's "Learning History," indicating that the Beneficiary 
registered for 64 training courses between November 20 I 0 and August 20 13, and completed 61 of 
them. The record provides little information about these courses apart from dates and titles. The 
Petitioner did not explain which of these courses imparted specialized knowledge in a manner that 
would be difficult and time-consuming to repeat. The Petitioner did not establish that any of the 
courses represented long-term training; the Beneficiary completed three of the courses 15 minutes 
apart on the afternoon of April 12, 2013. The only courses that appear to have involved training 
specifically related to the Beneficiary's technical duties were a s ingle course in "GWIM Business" 
and 14 short courses in IBM Cognos 8 Bl completed oyer the course of five days in March and April 
2011 . The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's work at the COE required 
him to comple te training on proprietary or company-spcci tic tech nologies. 
The Petitioner submitted printouts of electronic slide presentations, but did not provide context to 
establish their significance. One presentation on MIDAS dates from 2004, nearly six years before 
the Beneficiary joined the company. 
In terms of material that specifically mentions the Beneficiary, he prepared or co-prepared 
documents about several projects, including the following examples: 
• "(P]rocuring servers to set up a robust infrastructure for BI Reporting COE's reporting 
solutions for the G WJM business and other technology stakeholders" 
• "Extending Business Capabilities ... with IBM Cognos Solutions" 
• "Advanced Scheduling Capabilities and Cube Automation Practice" 
6 
Mauer ofM-L-
• "[T]o procure and setup a state-of~the-art Bl infrastructure on physical servers to support 
advanced reporting capabilities across different tools" - a project largely handled with 
Cognos tools 
The Beneficiary prepared a number of these documents during his first 18 months at the company. 
The Petitioner referred to Cognos as one of its "proprietary business intelligence tools," in which it 
would be "impossible to gain" expertise outside the petitioning organization, but the submitted 
documentation indicates that Cognos -is an IBM product. One of the Beneficiary's reports indicated: 
"C.ognos has been the tool of choice for business reporting within the BIST group since 2004. 
Currently, there are over I 000 active users using the tool for their ad-hoc and production reporting 
purposes." The Petitioner also referred to "Tableau" and "OBIEE" (Oracle Business Intelligence 
Enterprise Edition) as its proprietary tools, but both are also third-party technologies widely 
available outside the Petitioner's organization. 
The apparent exaggerations and inaccuracies in the Petitioner's statements limit their credibility and 
· reliability. 
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. 
The current statutory and regulatory definitions of "specialized knowledge" do not include a 
requirement that a beneficiary's knowledge be proprietary. Thus, whether the knowledge is 
proprietary or not, a petitioner must still establish that the knowledge utilized in the proposed 
position and possessed by the beneficiary is in fact specific to the petitioning organization, and 
somehow different from that possessed by similarly-employed personnel in the industry. It is 
reasonable to believe that all major financial institutions develop internal tools and methodologies, 
but in this instance the Petitioner has identified some tools as proprietary even when the record 
shows them to originate from third party providers. The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained 
what knowledge the Beneficiary has gained that is specitic to only its organization, and the 
Petitioner has not established that it would take a significant amount of time to train a qualified 
worker to perform the duties required of the proposed position. 
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. 
7 
1'-'fcilter ofM-L-
We cannot differentiate· the Beneficiary's knowledge from other employees within the petitioning 
organization without reviewing 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 the necessary information to make such a comparison. The Petitioner 
has asserted, without· elaboration, that the Beneficiary is one of only live, or th~ce, employees 
possessing certain knowledge, but the record does not support these claims. 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. 
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 that of others in comparable positions, 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 difTerent 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. 
For the above reasons, the record docs not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge as contemplated in the statute and regulations. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. This finding 
inherently precludes a finding that the Beneficiary's employment abroad and in the United States 
involve specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Mclller of M-L-, ID# 862836 (AAO Apr. 17, 20 18) 
8