dismissed L-1B Case: Finance

MATTER OF N-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FORA NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a telecommunications solutions provider for the contact center industry, seeks to 
employ the Beneficiary as its financial manager under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the evidence 
of record did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that she has been 
employed abroad and will be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner states that the misapplied U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) statutory, regulatory, and policy standards to the 
facts presented and misinterpreted much of the supporting evidence submitted in support of the 
petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for 1 continuous year within 3 years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 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 managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. I d. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the statutory definition of 
specialized knowledge: 
For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered to be serving in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has a special 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets or has an 
advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company~ 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D) defines 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(1)(3) requires that an individual L-IB petition be accompanied by 
evidence that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a position that was managerial, executive or 
involved specialized knowledge, evidence that the beneficiary's prior education, training and 
employment qualifies him/her to perform the intended services in the United States, and evidence 
that the beneficiary will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed 
description of the duties to be performed. 
II. SPEt:IALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge or that she has been employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
A. Evidence of Record 
In a letter in support of the petition, the Petitioner explained that it seeks to transfer the Beneficiary 
from her current financial manager position at its Romanian affiliate to a U.S.-based financial 
manager position in which she will assume additional responsibilities. The Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary has performed the following duties abroad since assuming the position in April 2014: 
• Manage and control of revenue and costs of goods .... ; 
• Oversee direct reports; 
• Control monthly financial reporting and analysis: 
• Overseeing capital expenditures allocation by business units. 
• Overseeing financial package reporting presentat-ions by business units 
(monthly financial statements, actual versus budget analysis). 
• Overseeing various financial reconciliations; 
• Conduct audit support: 
• planning and providing for organization of internal materials necessary for the 
audit process; 
2 
Matter ofN-, Inc. 
• Maintain internal controls: 
• Coordinating the month end closing process with the other accounting 
personnel; 
• Supervise employees who prepare financial reports. 
The Petitioner stated· that once the Beneficiary is transferred to the United States, she will delegate 
reports preparation to her subordinates and will continue performing the following duties: 
• Control and analyzing the revenues and cost of goods; 
• Overseeing the direct reports; 
• Reviewing the monthly financial statements with the CEO and the President; 
• Organizing the external audit process; 
• Coordinating the month end closing process with other accounting personnel; 
• Managerial support and monitoring of strategic business plans and forecasts; 
• Participating in negotiations with clients; 
• Managing accounts and financial functions of the California ot1ice; 
• Interacting with any necessary regulation institutions during the audit; 
• Coordinating budget and planning approaches with sales teams; 
• Assisting in company growth through detailed analysis of client per product. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has "unique and comprehensive knowledge of our 
proprietary internal financial systems and complex operating systems" and contributed to the 
development of "many" of these systems. The Petitioner also noted the Beneficiary's "keen 
understanding of [the company's] products and services ranging from consumer products to 
wholesale services to telecommunications services." 
In further explaining the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge, the Petitioner explained that: (1) she 
has knowledge of the inner financial workings, internal financial systems and complex operating 
systems used within the foreign and U.S. companies, and which can only be gained with the foreign 
entity; and (2) she "constructed processes" such as those used to plan and organize audits, to "fit the 
needs of the company" and therefore has contributed to the company's efficiency and 
competitiveness. The Petitioner stated that her special assignment-based financial planning duties 
and her cultivation within the company and with clients makes her "an incomparable asset to our 
competitive edge and financial position." 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary gained her specialized knowledge through her exposure to 
the company's "inner fin'ancial workings and complex operating systems" combined with 
"specialized knowledge of budgeting, financial and accounting practices"; "knowledge of financial 
techniques and tools in order to transpose the business elements and build business analytics"; and 
"building such tools, implementing and maintaining, and permanently adapting them on [a] regular 
basis." In addition, the Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary "has built complex and analytic 
tools for products by client, by channel, and she maintains interfaces with other software systems 
built in [the company], and she is the only owner ofthis tool." 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-, Inc. 
More specifically, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary is "involved in the specifications design 
and implementation process of virtual platforms for which specialized software is created for the 
company named The Petitioner explained that "[t]rying to train someone else to learn all 
of these tools would require more than 1 year, which is not feasible, nor would it result in that person 
being at [the Beneficiary's] level." The Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary "developed these 
systems, processes, systems and 
tools in the first place" and therefore the 1 year of training is not 
applicable to her. The Petitioner concluded by noting that she "has gained specialized knowledge of 
applicable financial practices and business operations experience in leading the development of 
programming and forecasting herself, which makes her the only candidate" for the U.S. position. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided evidence of the Beneficiary's educational 
credentials, which include a bachelor's degree in economics and a master's diploma in international 
accountancy and financial audit. The Petitioner also submitted: copies of two corporate reports and 
four financial reports for the year 2014-15, which it attributed to the Beneficiary; screenshots of 
screenshots of a ' ; and a 
training transcript for the 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE). The Director acknowledged the submitted 
evidence and advised the Petitioner that the supporting documentation was insufficient to establish 
that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is special or advanced or why such knowledge could 
not be readily transferred to a similarly educated and experienced financial professional. The 
Director stated that the Petitioner should provide a comparison of the Beneficiary's knowledge to 
that of other employees and workers the same field, a more detailed description of the Beneficiary's 
knowledge and whether it is "special" or "advanced," and additional information regarding the 
amount or type of training needed for another employee to acquire the claimed specialized 
knowledge. The Directors also provided a list of additional evidence the Petitioner may wish to 
submit in support of the petition. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a letter in which it repeated that the Beneficiary has a 
"comprehensive knowledge of our internal financial systems and the complex operating systems 
utilized within the company, such as as a result of her experience working in 
Romania. The Petitioner identified the tool developed by the Beneficiary as the ' 
' and emphasized that the Beneficiary will hold a key position that requires daily interaction 
with upper management, particularly during the business forecast process. The Petitioner 
resubmitted the supporting 
evidence provided at the time of filing. 
In denying the petition, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that the financial manager 
position requires knowledge of the company's products, processes and systems, but determined that 
the Petitioner had not shown that a similarly-employed worker in the field could not readily acquire 
this company-specific knowledge. The Director emphasized that the Petitioner must establish that 
any company-specific or proprietary knowledge is either "special" or "advanced" and concluded that 
the Petitioner had not done so. 
4 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director misapplied the applicable statutory, regulatory and 
USCIS policy standards to the facts of this case, and misinterpreted the Petitioner's supporting 
documentation submitted to corroborate the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge.
1 
Specifically, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director "failed to recognize that [the Beneficiary's] creation of complex 
Operating System ('OS') tools for [the Petitioner], and her involvement with the design and 
implementation of [the Petitioner's] proprietary software, constitutes specialized knowledge." The 
Petitioner suggests that the Director placed too much emphasis on the stated job duties, without 
considering the specialized knowledge required to carry out those duties. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and evidence, including the Petitioner's appeal, we agree with the 
Director's decision. 
The statutory definition of specialized knowledge at Section 214( c )(2)(B) of the Act is comprised of 
two equal but distinct subparts. First, an individual is considered to be employed in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge if that person "has a special knowledge of the company product 
and its application in international markets." Second, an individual is considered to be serving in a 
capacity involving specialized knowledge if that person "has an advanced level of knowledge of 
processes and procedures ofthe company." See also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). A petitioner may 
establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy 
either prong of the definition. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and 
type of evidence which establishes whether the beneficiary actually possesses specialized 
knowledge. USCIS 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 the 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. A petitioner should also describe how such 
knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the beneficiary 
gained such knowledge. 
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 a 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 cites to USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-IB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), 
https:/ /www. uscis.gov /laws/pol icy-memoranda. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-, Inc. 
of the evidence that the Beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is advanced or special, and that the 
Beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has special knowledge of the 
company's products, inner financial workings and financial systems, as well as its budgeting, 
financial, and accounting processes and practices. In addition, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Beneficiary has specialized knowledge of proprietary software systems and tools, including 
and · 
Because "special knowledge" concerns 
knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or 
services and its 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. Knowledge that is 
commonly held throughout the petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person 
to another is not considered specialized. 
While we do not doubt that the Beneficiary has become familiar with the foreign entity's products, 
clients, and "inner financial workings" in her 2 years of employment as a financial manager, the 
Petitioner did not sufficiently describe or document this company-specific knowledge, or how the 
Beneficiary acquired it, in sufficient detail to support a claim that the knowledge she has acquired is 
truly distinct in comparison to the knowledge that would generally be held by a financial manager in 
its industry. Any financial manager would reasonably be expected to acquire such company-specific 
knowledge of their employer, either through formal or on-the-job training. The record does not 
contain information regarding the Beneficiary's prior employment history. It appears based on the 
limited information provided that she was hired for the financial manager position in 2014 despite 
having no prior employment within the Petitioner's group. The Petitioner has not stated that the 
Beneficiary underwent any internal training in the company's systems, processes, practices or other 
.aspects of its financial operations before fully assuming her duties, nor has it otherwise submitted 
evidence to establish how this company-specific knowledge is truly distinct, uncommon and not 
something that could be easily imparted to a similarly educated and experienced professional in the 
field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge is primarily based 
on her "creation of complex Operating System ('OS') tools for [the Petitioner], and her involvement 
with the design and implementation of [the Petitioner's] proprietary software." The current statutory 
and regulatory definitions of "specialized knowledge" do not include a requirement that a 
beneficiary's knowledge be proprietary. However, a petitioner might satisfy the current standard by 
. establishing that a beneficiary's purported specialized knowledge is proprietary, as long as the 
petitioner demonstrates that the knowledge is either "special" or "advanced." By itself, simply 
claiming 
that knowledge is proprietary will not satisfy the statutory standard. 
Again, the Petitioner has not adequately supported its proprietary knowledge claim with a detailed 
description and documentation of the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge. We 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-, Inc. 
acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Director's analysis over-emphasized the Beneficiary's 
stated duties and overlooked the claimed knowledge required to perform those duties. However, it is 
notable that none of the Beneficiary's current or proposed duties include any responsibilities related 
to the development of tools or software, or even mention the use of any tools, software or systems 
necessary to carrying out the duties. While we must look at the job duties in the context of the 
claimed specialized knowledge required to perform those duties, in this case, there is a clear gap 
between the stated duties and the purported specialized knowledge derived from the development of 
proprietary software. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner provided some documentation related to 
and the latter of which appears to be a customized report produced 
in MicroSoft Excel, which the petitioner refers to it as a "tool" developed by the Beneficiary. 
However simply showing that these tools exist and are in use within the company is insufficient to 
establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge of the tools, or that her knowledge is 
derived from her contribution to the development of "many" of the company's internal tools and 
systems. The Petitioner has not provided a description of her role in any software or systems 
development activities or sufficient supporting evidence demonstrating that this development role 
has been ·part of her duties as a financial manager. The Petitioner must support its assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010). 
The Petitioner went on to state that it would require more 
than 1 year for someone to learn its 
internal financial systems and tools, and implied that the training is "not applicable" to the 
Beneficiary because she "developed these systems, processes, systems, and tools in the first place." 
The Petitioner offered no further explanation regarding its training program to support its claim that 
it would take more than a year for a trained financial professional to learn how to use these tools, 
and, as discussed, did not support its claim that the Beneficiary developed these tools since joining 
the company in 2014. Further we note that, although the Petitioner states these tools and systems are 
proprietary, the Petitioner has provided very little information in support of a claim that the 
knowledge required to work with these tools could only be gained through either participation in the 
tools' development or, alternately, through a lengthy period of training. 
In sum, the submitted positions do not describe the Beneficiary's role in the development of the 
Petitioner's proprietary systems and tools and the record does not adequately support the Petitioner's 
assertion that the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge derives from her major role in the 
development of these systems and tools since their early stages. 
Based on similar evidentiary deficiencies, the record does not support a finding that the Beneficiary 
possesses advanced knowledge. 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 expertise in the organization's processes and procedures that is 
greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity and understanding in comparison to other 
Matter ~~ N-, Inc. 
workers in the employer's operations. Such advanced knowledge must be supported by evidence 
setting that knowledge apart from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. 
The Petitioner has not provided information or evidence that would allow us to make a meaningful 
comparison between the Beneficiary's knowledge and that of other workers within the Petitioner or 
foreign entity. The Petitioner emphasizes the Beneficiary's management role and her interaction 
with senior management and executives. However, despite the Beneficiary's financial manager job 
title and level of responsibility, we cannot determine that her knowledge of company processes and 
procedures is advanced in relation to the Petitioner's other employees if we do not have sufficient 
information regarding those employees' relative knowledge and roles. The Petitioner has not 
provided organizational charts or identified the roles and relative knowledge of other similarly 
employed workers within the U.S. or foreign entities. The Petitioner did not provide evidence of any 
training she completed in company processes upon being hired by the foreign entity or explain the 
processes or procedures in which she possesses advanced knowledge. 
The Petitioner did state that the Beneficiary has been responsible for establishing procedures within 
her department such as audit procedures; however, it did not describe or document these procedures 
or explain why this knowledge is advanced and could not be easily imparted to another employee. 
Further, as discussed above, the Petitioner has not adequately described or documented the 
Beneficiary's claimed role in the development of its internal financial systems and tools in support 
of its claim that her 2 years of employment as a financial manager resulted in her acquisition of 
advanced knowledge not widely held within the Petitioner's organization. 
Overall, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's expertise in the organization's 
processes and procedures after 2 years of employment abroad is greatly developed or further along 
in progress, complexity, and understanding in comparison to other workers in the organization. 
Here, the Petitioner's claims are not supported by evidence setting the Beneficiary's knowledge of 
company processes apart from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary possesses various characteristics 
of a worker with qualifying specialized knowledge as set forth in USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-
601-011, supra, at 8. For the reasons discussed above, 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 may be beneficial to the Petitioner's competitiveness 
in the marketplace, this characteristic alone is not probative of her specialized knowledge. 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" and such factors must 
be supported by evidence. !d. The memorandum highlights that "ultimately, it is the weight and 
type of evidence that establishes whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge." Jd. at 
10. 
8 
Matter of N-, Inc. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence' submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge and that she has been employed abroad and will be employed in a 
specialized knowledge capacity with the Petitioner in the United States. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the 
petitioner. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 136. Here that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN- Inc., ID# 202360 (AAO Feb. 27, 2017) 
9