dismissed L-1B Case: Financial Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 27. 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a financial processes solutions provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "Lead Consultant" under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L). 8 U.S.C. ~ 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The L-1 B classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its atliliate or subsidiary) to 
transfer a qualifying foreign employee with "specialized knowledge" to work temporarily in the 
United States. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition. concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and has been employed 
abroad, and will be employed in the United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it has submitted ample evidence to demonstrate that the U.S. 
position and the foreign position are lead consultant positions that require ''both special knowledge 
ofthe company's products and services, as well as advanced knowledge.'' The Petitioner avers that 
the Beneficiary possesses the knowledge required for the position. 
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 qualifying managerial or executive capacity. or in a position 
involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year within the three years preceding the 
beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. Section 101(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 relevant statutory definition 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 product and its application in international markets or has an advanced level of 
Matter qf B-, Inc. 
knowledge of processes and procedures of the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1184( c )(2)(8). 
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: (I) 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 tiling 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 qualities him or her to perform the intended services in the United 
States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's prior education. 
training, or employment qualifies him to perform in a specialized knowledge capacity and further 
determined that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary's foreign position and proposed U.S. 
position require specialized 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: (I) 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. 
As both "special'' and ''advanced'' are relative terms. determining whether a given beneficiary's 
knowledge is ''special" or "advanced'' inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's 
knowledge against that of others. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge. the 
petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that the 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 
2 
.
Maller of B-. Inc. 
of the evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is special or advanced, and that the 
beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 1 
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. 
Here, the Petitioner states that it provides solutions for two key financial processes, 
and financial management and asserts that it is recognized in the industry as a leading provider 
I 
of invoice automation and procurement solutions. The Petitioner claims that it does not simply 
install pre-developed software , but rather develops software solutions based on its platform to meet 
the specific needs of clients. The Petitioner states that the petitioning organization has over 1,000 
employees in 12 subsidiaries located throughout the world. On the Form 1-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner states that it currently employs 72 staff in the United States. 
The Petitioner identifies two of its products , and and claims that "the Beneficiary is an 
expert in these products and much of his specialized knowledge centers around these products." The 
Petitioner explains that its platform "combines the latest cloud, social, mobile and smart 
analytics technologies to allow businesses to create, deploy and connect critical and 
order-to-cash processes across the extended enterprise simply , quickly and cost-effectively" and 
allows organizations to "optimize and accelerate the billions of interactions, transactions, and 
relationships that power global commerce, of every hour of every day." The Petitioner describes the 
product as a way to simplify and streamline key financial processes. and 
notes that companies that take a networked approach to are better able to optimize working 
capital , free up cash within the business, and unlock new profit streams. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's knowledge centers, in part around the 
platform , it does not describe the technical interaction of its other products with this platform in 
layman terms. We note that the "customer service 3rd line support" organizational chart identities 
the Beneficiary as one of 17 employees on the team. The organizational chart does 
not identify the Beneficiary's work with an platform team 2 and the Petitioner docs not explain 
the necessity of the third line team to have specialized knowledge of the 
platform. 
1 
Although some aspects of the "special" and "advanced'' knowledge definitions may overlap, we will address each 
element individually. 
2 
The petitioning organization's "customer service 2nd line support '' organizational chart categorizes the second line 
support customer support by product, including separate headings for and 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
Regarding the Beneficiary, the Petitioner states that he began work for the foreign entity in January 
2011, as a support consultant, was promoted to a senior product support consultant position in Apri I 
2014, and was promoted to the lead consultant position in April2015. The Petitioner and the foreign 
entity both initially and in response to the Director's request for evidence state that the Beneficiary's 
first position with the foreign entity was in the position of ''lead consultant.·· However, the 
Beneficiary's payroll records and resume, as well as the foreign entity's otTer of employment. 
identify his initial position with the foreign entity as a '·support consultant." The Petitioner asserts 
that the Beneficiary's knowledge coupled with his experience and training with the Petitioner sets 
him apart from others and has resulted in his advanced and specialized knowledge in the field. 
We have considered the Petitioner's reference to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services· 
(USCIS ')policy on the adjudication of L-1 B petitions and in particular USC IS Policy Memorandum 
PM-602-0111, L-1 B Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy­
memoranda. As explained in the memorandum, USC IS is able to adjudicate L-1 B petitions most 
effectively when a petitioner "explains in detail the specific nature of the industry or field involved. 
the nature of the petitioning organization's products or services, the nature of the specialized 
knowledge required to perform the beneficiary's duties, and the need for the beneficiary's 
specialized knowledge." In this matter, the Petitioner has not provided the necessary detailed 
information required to establish these essential elements. 
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 pmiicular 
industry. 
The Petitioner initially did not describe the Beneficiary's special knowledge. but rather claimed that 
the Beneficiary used his knowledge to perform ce1iain duties for the foreign entity and would do so 
for the U.S. entity. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). the foreign entity listed 
the Beneficiary's duties and allocated the Beneficiary's time to those duties. The foreign entity 
indicated that the Beneficiary spent 20 percent of his time ''troubleshooting of the 3rd line critical 
Product and SaaS Environmental client issues of [the petitioning organization's) [p]roducts." 
30 percent of his time "[h]andling critical 3rd line escalations which require combination of 
extensive knowledge of [the petitioning organization's] [p]roducts as well as [p]latform knowledge 
to maintain SLAs of the customer," and 10 percent of his time "[s]upporting highly complex 
implementation and integration of [the petitioning organization· s] [p ]roducts and platforms." The 
Petitioner noted that the "third level of service provided by [the Beneficiary] is the top level of 
customer service and support provided by our organization.'' 
Also in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner claimed that its industry is ·'narrow." and that 
its financial software is "complex." The record includes promotional materials for the Petitioner's 
4 
.
Matter of B-, Inc. 
platform and its product describing their benefits to potential customers. 
However, the Petitioner does not explain how its proprietary versions of these products differ 
significantly from other platforms and programs that perform similar functions. Although the 
Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary "wo rks in close collaboration with R&D and Delivery," the 
Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary provided any design or development for these or any 
other of its products. 
The Petitioner also does not detail the length of time it takes to train an experienced technician or 
software developer to support the use of the Petitioner's products. The Beneficiary in this matter has 
a foreign technical degree and entered the foreign entity's employ with three years of experience 
working as a software consultant for another company. In the Beneficiary's first year of 
employment with the foreign entity in this matter , the Beneficiary received an unspecified number of 
hours of training on five modules. He received training on '·Jp + Matching," in February 20 II, on 
"AnyERP," in March 2011 , on "CLM," in April 2011 , on "'AnyERP Advanced (SAP)," in May 
2011, and on "Purchase Management " in November 2011. Although the record contains inferences 
that these are also the petitioning organization's products, the Petitioner does not describe these 
products. The Petitioner also does not describe the curriculum or the number of hours or days 
required for each product training module and does not indicate whether all of the petitioning 
organization 's technical employees receive these or similar types of training . The Beneficiary's only 
other training with the foreign entity occurred in April 2013, on the subject of the petitioning 
organization's platform. The Petitioner does not identify how any of the Beneticiary 's 
training is different from training received by its other technical customer service employees. 
Without detailed information on the petitioning organization's platform, program s, and products and 
the actual training required to use and troubleshoot these programs. we cannot determine that 
knowledge of these products and programs could be considered distinct or uncommon within the 
Petitioner's industry. Based on the minimal information and evidence submitted regarding the 
platform and the program , and their training requirements. it appears more likely than 
not that a qualified technician may require only limited training and a basic level of technical 
familiarity to use and troubleshoot the petitioning organization 's software programs, even at the third 
level of customer support, and that knowledge of this technology could be readily transferred to 
other similarly degreed technicians working in the Petitioner's industry. 
We note, for example , that the Beneficiary ' s resume shows that in his initial pos1t10n with the 
foreign entity, he was responsible for "analyzing, troubleshooting. resolving third line issues' ' and 
for "[i]nstallation and implementation of different environments related to various clients in order to 
troubleshoot issues/problems related to [the petitioning organization's] products." The assignment 
to the third line of support continued throughout his subsequent positions. Thus, the Beneficiary was 
assigned upon his immediate employment to third line customer service. While the Beneticiary may 
have continued to become more familiar with handling third line issues. he initially required only 
minimal training and no experience with the Petitioner 's products and services to perform the third 
line responsibilities. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary's initial knowledge is special 
knowledge and does not elaborate on how his regular resolution of third line issues over time 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
became special knowledge. Experience alone, while valuable, does not equal specialized 
knowledge. The Petitioner does not establish that the Beneficiary's duties troubleshooting its 
products form a basis for the development of specialized knowledge. 
We recognize that the Beneficiary has gained insight into the petitioning organization's products and 
internal processes during his tenure at the foreign entity. But the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary's work experience while employed as a consultant for the foreign entity resulted in 
knowledge that is distinct, noteworthy, or uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other 
similarly employed workers in the financial services processing industry. The Petitioner does not 
effectively differentiate the Beneficiary's initial employment with his employment in April 2015 and 
does not describe how the Beneficiary gained special knowledge of its products through training or 
special tasks. The Petitioner, here, does not explain how other experienced technical consultants in 
the industry would be unable to perform the third line customer service support of the petitioning 
organization's products with a similar amount of minimal training. 
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 companies develop internal tools, methodologies, and software. 
Without a substantive explanation or evidence, the Petitioner has not established that the petitioning 
company's products are particularly complex or uncommon compared to similar products of other 
companies. The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how the Beneficiary gained knowledge 
specific to only its organization, and has not supported a claim that it would take a significant 
amount of time to train an experienced technician or developer to perform the duties required of the 
proposed position. 
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 products. However, the record lacks probative 
evidence demonstrating that extensive training is required to perform the duties it claims are 
different from that of other technicians, 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. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special 
knowledge of the company's services and their application in international markets. 
Matter of B-, Inc. 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner asserts that during the Beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity, he gained an 
advanced level of specialized knowledge of the petitioning organization's proprietary software 
solutions and services and the ability to implement them in international markets. Because 
"advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures. the 
Petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the Beneficiary has knowledge of or an 
expertise in the organization's processes and procedures that is greatly developed or further along in 
progress, complexity, and understanding in comparison to other workers in the employer's 
operations. Such advanced knowledge must be supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart 
from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary" s "product knowledge 
is of the highest within our company" that his "interface knowledge is the best within our entire 
Customer Care team," and that he has ''third line skills and usage which exceed all other tiers and 
functions in the company.'' The Petitioner does not offer evidence or explanation on how it arrived 
at these conclusions. The Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary has been ·'responsible for internal 
product training since 20 12,'' has handled "most of the major escalations .. on the legacy product 
side, and has been responsible for support on major SaaS upgrade projects. The Petitioner does not 
explain how the Beneficiary's work and responsibilities differed from other employees in the third 
line support sector of the petitioning organization. For example, although the Petitioner claimed that 
the Beneficiary was responsible for internal product training since 2012. the Petitioner did not 
describe how the Beneficiary was prepared to perform this responsibility. And additionally. the 
Petitioner does not differentiate the Beneficiary's time providing knowledge to team members to 
debug code for fast solutions, and assisting and mentoring team members, from the work and 
responsibility of other team members. 
The Petitioner and the Beneficiary also reference the Beneficiary's three- to five-month deployment 
to the United Kingdom in 2012, to provide technical support and to train team members on product 
technical support and share knowledge on the petitioning organization's products. However. the 
Petitioner does not provide evidence that the Beneficiary received training or performed specific 
tasks that resulted in specialized knowledge necessary to train and share knowledge with the other 
support employees. The Beneficiary's skill at training others is not equivalent to knowledge of the 
petitioning 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. The Petitioner has not established that the knowledge conveyed in such trainings IS 
specialized knowledge. 
The Petitioner also asserted that the Beneficiary ''is one of four Lead Systems Support in our entire 
global company." However, the Petitioner docs not identify the other three individuals in this 
position, detail their education, training, and experience or otherwise offer evidence that there arc 
only four (including the Beneficiary) Lead Systems Support positions in the over 1000 employees 
within the global company. 
.
Matter of B-. Inc. 
To differentiate the Beneficiary's knowledge from other employees within the pet1t10ning 
organization, we review the duties of those employees in similar positions, as well as their training, 
education, and length of experience with the petitioning organization's products. The Petitioner 
submitted its customer service support model and organizational charts depicting the customer 
service departments and their subordinate components in different geographical areas. The 
Beneficiary is depicted on the organizational chart labeled as a "service desk Jrd line support" and 
one of 17 employees in the division. The record also includes a one-page document 
the Petitioner claims includes all the employees in the Beneficiary's division and \vhich identities the 
employees by name, title , and salary; 3 however , the 20 names on this list do not correspond to the 
names of the 17 employees in the division on the petitioning organization's "service 
desk 3rd line support." It is not clear whether the division depicted on the organizational chart 
identities employees at the foreign entity and the one-page document identifies employees at the 
Petitioner's U.S. location. In any event, neither list identifies the other employees· duties, training. 
education, or depicts when the employees were hired or how long they have been employed. The 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced within the Petitioner's 
own operations. 
In sum, the record does not include sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary's 
combination of professional experience, work assignments, and knowledge of the Petitioner ' s 
proprietary software and methodologies has resulted in his possession of knowledge that is distinct 
or uncommon compared to similarly employed \Vorkers in the industry or others within the 
petitioning company or that is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity. and 
understanding in comparison to other workers in the employer ' s operation s. 
While the Beneficiary may be a valuable employee who is well-qualified for the proposed position 
in the United States , the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special or advanced 
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 B-. Inc., ID# 643408 (AAO Sept. 27, 20 17) 
' The one-page document does not list the Beneficiary .