dismissed L-1B Case: Financial Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7144860 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 31, 2020 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, a technology consulting firm, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment 
as a "Senior Technical Architect" in the United States under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that: 1) the Beneficiary's former foreign employment involved specialized knowledge, 2) the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the services in the United States, and 3) the Beneficiary's U.S. position 
would involve specialized knowledge . 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to two prior L-lB nonimmigrant visa approvals it received on behalf 
of the Beneficiary and states that the facts of his employment have not changed. The Petitioner 
indicates it submitted spreadsheets extensively comparing the Beneficiary to his colleagues which 
demonstrate that his knowledge is advanced in comparison. The Petitioner further asserts that it 
provided highly detailed foreign duty descriptions for the Beneficiary , contrary to the Director's 
conclusion that these descriptions were generic. In addition, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is unusual and different compared to other similarly placed individuals in the industry. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B nonirnmigrant 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 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. Id. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary'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). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner indicated that it and its affiliated companies, including the Beneficiary's former foreign 
employer, "design, implement and customize enterprise systems for securities trading, portfolio 
management, asset securitization, risk management, c-finance and financial operations." The Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign employer as a lead architect beginning in 2004 
up until his entry into the United States as an L-1 B nonimmigrant in July 2015. The Petitioner stated 
that the Beneficiary "developed advanced and nearly unique knowledge in the fields of quantitative 
finance - specifically structured fixed income securities, database designing and software 
development." The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary "specializes in requirement analysis and 
development of quantitative trading and risk management technology for structured fixed income and 
U.S. High Yield Bonds and Loans." In addition, the Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary "is also an 
expert in a number of software mobile application development technologies." 
The Petitioner further explained the Beneficiary's knowledge and expertise as follows: 
[The Beneficiary] possesses skills that are very rare at [the Petitioner and its affiliated 
companies] and in the industry as a whole. In particular, [the Beneficiary] is highly 
advanced in Database Design and Data Architecture. He is an expert in database systems, 
including HP Vertica and Amazon Redshift, as well as SQL Server. He is [the 
company's] subject matter expert on NoSQL Databases and Big Data. No other 
[company] employee worldwide has the experience of knowledge that [the Beneficiary] 
possesses in these technologies ... He is also an expert in the use of INTEX CMO Deal 
Modeling Language and Library, which he uses to build data marts for RMBS, CMBS 
and CLO products. He has extensive knowledge of mortgage data across EMBS, Intex, 
Trepp and Loan Performance vendor data sets. He was the keY. senior tetnica) merber 
closely involved · · · and buildin] the data marts for I I, and 
I 1- Both...........,~----,1.andl which are licensed by I I The 
in-depth knowledge l-'J--.1.1.'1.:>....U.L..J..Lu...,,J.........,roducts will be extremely critical to [the Petitioner] 
to provide service to.__ ____ __.one of [the Petitioner's] largest clients. 
The Petitioner also added that the Beneficiary "led the offshore development for I I[ the company's] 
high performance mortgage data analysis platform based on columnar databases (Vertica, Vector Wise) 
for querying and analyzing complex datasets." It stated that the Beneficiary "designed and led the 
development of the UI for supporting basic & advanced querying capabilities." In addition, it indicated 
that "these skills are extremely rare in the industry and within [the company's] staff' and that the 
Beneficiary's "skills are at the very highest level of specialization." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary's knowledge is "unusual in comparison to 
other Director, Technical Services positions within [the company] and within the industry because [the 
Beneficiary's] duties were focused on the creation of large-scale data warehouses for the financial 
industry using [the company's] proprietary products." It indicated that the company's products are 
different from those offered by other financial software companies; noting th;:itl I holds "several 
features that make it unique in its field." These features include constructing a "hybrid best record for 
loan data combining data from various sources at loan, group and deal levels, and being specially 
optimized for grip computing." The Petitioner stated that this technology "would take just a few hours 
2 
to generate analytics for the entire universe of non-agency deals and ABS CDOs under multiple interest 
rate, HPI and loan-level prepay/loss scenario." 
The Petitioner stated in the petition that it would pay the Beneficiary $135,000 per year plus "Standard 
Company Benefits." 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he was employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. As a 
threshold matter, if the Beneficiary does not possess specialized knowledge, then his position abroad and 
in the United States would not involve specialized knowledge as necessary to qualify him. 
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 of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(c)(2)(B). 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. Specialized knowledge is also defined as special knowledge possessed by an individual of 
the petitioning organization's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other 
interests and its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in 
the organization's processes and procedures. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
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 an employee is able 
to gain specialized knowledge within the organization, and explain how and when the individual 
beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
A. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner emphasizes the Beneficiary's "very rare" and "highly advanced" knowledge, noting 
that within the company he is a subject matter expert on "NoSQL Databases" and "Big Data." It asserts 
that "no other [company] employee worldwide has the experience of knowledge that [the Beneficiary] 
possesses in these technologies." Since the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary has greater 
knowledge in its proprietary tools as compared to his colleagues within its greater corporate structure, 
we will first discuss whether it demonstrated that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced. 
Determinations concerning "advanced knowledge" require review of a beneficiary's knowledge of the 
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 farther along in progress, complexity, and understanding in 
comparison to other workers in the employer's operations. Such advanced knowledge must be 
3 
supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed 
by others. Also, as with special 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. 
In articulating its claim that the Beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge, the Petitioner emphasized 
the Beneficiary's "expert" knowledge of various technologies, including "HP Vertica," "Amazon 
Redshift," "SQL Server," "NoSQL Databases," "INTEX CMO Deal ~odehng T rguage and Library," 
"data marts for RMBS, CMBS and CLO products," and 'I I ~--~and I I" As 
discussed, 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, services, processes, or procedures. The Petitioner regularlr references the technologf 
discussed above, some which appears to be proprietary, such as 'I 1 land.11... ___ ___.' 
while other technology appears to be third party software, including "HP V ertica" and "Amazon 
Redshift." However, at no point does the Beneficiary explain in basic terms each of these technologies 
and what they do. As such, the nature of the Beneficiary's knowledge is not entirely clear, thereby 
making it difficult to discern how his knowledge is set apart or greatly advanced in comparison to his 
colleagues. Further, it is also noteworthy that there is little to no supporting documentation on the 
record reflecting the Beneficiary acting in his asserted capacity to demonstrate his greatly developed 
level of knowledge. 
To illustrate, the Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary leading the offshore development of 'I I" 
but it did not explain this technology sufficiently to understand it, articulate how it contributes to the 
Beneficiary's current role, and why this knowledge and experience sets him apart, nor did it document 
these activities. Further, the Beneficiary emphasizes that the Beneficiary was involved in designing 
and building the "datamarts for I JI land I l" but again, it does not describe 
in detail what these technologies are and what they do, how his knowledge in these technologies sets 
him apart from his colleagues, or document his involvement in designing these data marts. r 
Further, the Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate how the Beneficiary gained this advanced 
knowledge as compared to his colleagues or how this knowledge was set apart from them. Determining 
whether knowledge is "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge 
against that of others. The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing such a favorable comparison. 
The Petitioner submitted a basic chart listing the Petitioner's personnel, including the Beneficiary and 
generic information on the "skills" held by him and each of his colleagues. We acknowledge that this 
chart appeared to include more technologies and applications for the Beneficiary in the skills category, 
but this chart did not sufficiently demonstrate or explain in detail how he gained this knowledge when 
compared to his colleagues. In fact, this chart indicated that there were several employees within the 
Petitioner that had similar experience and education when compared to the Beneficiary's claimed 15 
years of experience, including four colleagues with more than 30 years' experience, two with more 
than 20, and one other with more than 15 years. 
Also, the list of the Beneficiary's colleagues reflects that all but one of its 18 employees had more than 
ten years' of experience. However, the Petitioner did not provide specific comparisons of the 
Beneficiary against his colleagues or sufficiently explain how he gained more knowledge than them 
in the aforementioned proprietary technologies. Likewise, the Petitioner provided a similarly vague 
4 
comparison chart specific to the Beneficiary's former colleagues abroad. Again, this chart generically 
listed technologies to different employees within the foreign employer, but the Petitioner did not 
meaningfully explain how the Beneficiary's knowledge was greater than more than 20 other technical 
"leaders" and "leads" working for the foreign employer. The Petitioner notably did not articulate how 
long it took the Beneficiary to gain his knowledge or indicate how long it would take another one of 
his colleagues or someone similarly placed in the industry to obtain his level of knowledge. 
In a support letter submitted along with the petition, the Petitioner stated that it required the services 
of an individual "holding at least a degree in computer science," "experience in software development 
and database designing," "5 years or more development experience in C#, ASP, .NET and SQL," and 
"strong experience in designing and developing large Investment data warehousing systems." 
However, it appears that many of those working for the Petitioner have this requisite experience and 
education, and are likely providing similar services to its many clients. It is reasonable to conclude 
without additional explanation and evidence that they also likely hold client specific and proprietary 
knowledge, much like the Beneficiary. 
Further, it is also notable that the Petitioner submitted agreements and statements of work specific to 
other client engagements reflecting the provision of licenses and support services similar to that 
provided by the Beneficiary. As noted, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary has advanced 
knowledge based on his assignment to a large client, I I However, the Petitioner 
submitted a 2014 agreement with another client for the provision of "RMBS Loan Mapping Service" 
and two other agreements related to the licensing of its j t software to other financial 
companies. The Beneficiary's involvement, if any, with these projects is not clear. Without further 
information and explanation, the licensing of the technology in which the Beneficiary is claimed to 
have expert knowledge suggests that his colleagues also work with financial institutions on 
implementing and supporting these proprietary products. 
The Petitioner also provided printouts of its website indicating that the company has 25 other clients, 
many of which are financial institutions. The website highlights the company's 1 I" and 
"big data technologies," noting that they leverage "HP Vertica" and Amazon Redshift." This 
discussion of the company's technologies and offerings sounds very similar to the asserted knowledge 
of the Beneficiary. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude, without more sufficient explanation and 
comparisons, that the Beneficiary's similarly experienced colleagues are also providing similar big 
data services to various other financial institutions. Meanwhile, the Petitioner indicates that the 
Beneficiary is exclusively assigned to one client. The Petitioner has not explained in detail how the 
Beneficiary gained greatly developed knowledge in the company's proprietary products in relation to 
his colleagues and how he become the most knowledgeable in these products and processes as claimed. 
In fact, the submitted evidence reflects that the Petitioner's proprietary products are widely provided 
to many other clients suggesting that knowledge of these technologies is more likely than not widely 
held within the company. Further, although the Petitioner is not required to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary developed the company's proprietary technologies, it is notable that it does not assert that 
he did so, suggesting that there are other professionals within the company who developed and created 
these proprietary technologies. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes a submitted expert opinion from a~-------~ an 
associate professor of computer systems technology atl !College of Technology. It 
5 
contends that this demonstrates the advanced nature of the Beneficiary's knowledge. We may, in our 
discretion, use advisory opinion statements from universities, professional organizations, or other 
sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight 
to that evidence. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
The expert opinion submitted by the Petitioner does not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is advanced in relation to his colleagues. For instance, the letter froml I largely 
reiterates the same general conclusions provided in the Petitioner's support letters and it does not 
sufficiently articulate how the Beneficiary's knowledge is set apart from his colleagues. For instance, 
the letter declares that the Beneficiary's knowledge is specialized and set apart without discussing in 
detail how he gained this asserted level of knowledge in comparison to his colleagues. Indeed, there 
is little or no discussion of the Beneficiary's colleagues in the opinion letter. 
Further, the expert opinion only generically reiterates the Petitioner's discussion of the Beneficiary's 
experience and knowledge. For example, thel I referenced several other projects the 
Beneficiary worked on and clients he worked with, including performing services for 
'-----------.,.....--,----,,.,.......1. ___ -----J investment advisory firm,"'! 0 ~ I 
Banking Corporation and I !financial data services company. However, 
the Petitioner and.__ ____ __,do not highlight or explain the Beneficiary's involvement in these 
projects, the knowledge he gained in working them, or how these assignments set him apart from his 
colleagues. We did not find the expert opinion, which largely reiterates the assertions of the Petitioner, 
as convincing in demonstrating that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced. 
Although we acknowledge that the Beneficiary's knowledge of the company's proprietary technologies 
and clients appears complex, complexity alone does not demonstrate that knowledge is specialized 
according to the regulations. The Petitioner has not effectively set the Beneficiary's knowledge apart 
from his colleagues with detailed and probative comparisons. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge. 
B. Special Knowledge 
We will next discuss whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
"special." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
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 
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 
6 
a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to another is not considered 
special knowledge. 
Although the Petitioner vaguely notes that the Beneficiary's knowledge is "rare in the industry," it 
provides little explanation and evidence as to why. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary holds 
knowledge of the company's proprietary tools such as its 1 f' and "big data technologies" 
leveraging "HP Vertica" and Amazon Redshift." However, there is little indication how these 
proprietary technologies or the Beneficiary's knowledge greatly exceeds other similarly placed 
professionals in the industry. For instance, the Petitioner stated that 1 I is distinguished by 
several features that make it unique in its field," noting that it "constructs a hybrid best record for loan 
data combining data from various sources at loan, group and deal levels" and that it 'just take[ s] a few 
hours to generate analytics for the entire universe of non-agency deals and ABS CDOs." It is not clear 
from this overly technical explanation how this proprietary technology is set apart from similarly 
placed companies or how the Beneficiary's specific knowledge of this proprietary technology is 
different from those similarly placed in the industry, professionals who are likely to also have 
knowledge of their own proprietary technologies and specific clients. To illustrate, the Petitioner 
emphasizes that it only takes few hour to generate analytics using its technology, but does not indicate 
how long this would take using other similar technologies or other methods. In addition, the Petitioner 
noted thatl lhas "several features unique in the field," but it does not explain these features 
in a detailed and understandable manner, nor does it indicate how these features are unique in 
comp an son. 
The Petitioner also indicates that "no other system is available that integrates so many asset classes 
and such a wide variety of data sources" and that "most of the other competing products are either 
asset class specific or are in-house developed by a few financial service firms for their own use." First, 
this statement indicates that there are competing products to the Petitioner's greater company and its 
technology. Yet, the Petitioner does not meaningfully discuss how its technology is set apart or offer 
specific comparisons, it only declares that it is the only system with "such a wide variety of data 
sources." There is little indication as to why this ability is distinct or uncommon. It also submits little 
supporting documentation to substantiate the assertion that its technology is distinct or uncommon in 
comparison to the knowledge of those similarly employed in the industry. The Petitioner provides no 
specific comparisons of the Beneficiary's knowledge in relation to the greater industry; within which, 
it is reasonable to conclude that other similar professionals likely have their own proprietary tools they 
use to provide services and which they also license to their clients. 
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is "special" as defined by the regulations. 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, we 
need not further address whether he is qualified for the proffered position in the United States or 
whether this position abroad involved specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7