dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-M- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 12,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an "IT/Distribution" company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a senior 
web applications developer under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(IS)(L). The 
L-1 B classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to 
transfer a qualifying foreign employee with "specialized knowledge" to work temporarily in the 
United States. 
' The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, that he has been employed 
abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge, and that he will be employed in a specialized 
knowledge capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision relies on irrelevant factors and fails to 
address the Petitioner's primary claims regarding the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge. The 
Petitioner emphasizes that it established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge as defined in the statute, regulations, and a 2015 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy memorandum. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," tor one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United Stales. Section IO!(a)(IS)(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 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). 
.
Malter of 1-M- Inc. 
Under the s tatute, a beneficiary is considered to have specialized knowledge i r he o r she has: (I) a 
"specia l" know ledge of the company product and its application in interna tional markets ; or (2) an 
"advanced" level of know ledge of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 
2 14(c)(2)( B) of the Act. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). A petitioner m ay 
establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneticiary and the proffered position satisfy 
either prong of the statutory definit ion of specia lized knowledge. 
Specialized knowledge is also defined as knowledge possessed by an individual of the pelltwn!ng 
organization's product, service, research , equipment, techniques, management , or other interests and its 
application i n international markets, or an advanced level of kno\vledge or expertise in the 
organization's processes and procedures. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(J)(i i)(D). 
!1. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is self-described as "the world's largest technolog y distributor and leading technology 
sales, market ing, and logistics compa ny.'! It states that it has 30,000 employees and $46.4 billion in 
sales. The Beneficiary has been employed by the Petitioner's Philippines subsid iary since 20151 as a 
senior application developer, and the Petitioner seeks to transfer him to its California headquarters to 
serve in the position of senior web applications developer? The Benefici ary has bache lor's degrees in 
secondary education and in computer science. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
In the denial dec ision, the Director ack nowledged the Petitioner 's claim that the Beneficiary 
acquired expertise and knowledge of the company's 
by attend ing training in the United States. The Director found that the Petitioner did not adequately 
explain or document how his training resulted in the acquisition of knowledge that is e ither special 
or advance d. Moreover , the Director found that the Beneficiary's duti es abroad and proposed duties 
in the United States appear to be similar to that of a senior \·Veb developer as described in the 
Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH ). Finally, the Director found that the 
Petitioner cl id not explain with suf!kicnt specifici ty how the Beneficiary's fami I iarity with the 
company 's products and processes equates to specialized knowledge , and had not shown how the 
Bendiciary's current and proposed positions require him to possess knowledge that is truly different 
and uncommon compared to that possessed by similarly employed workers in the industry. 
On appea l, the Petitioner asserts that the Director' s decision improperly relied on inlormatio n found 
in the OOH and Jacked a detailed analysis of the speci fic facts of the case, includ ing the "most 
critica l fact - that the beneficiary was the lead developer, trainer, and deployment specia list of the 
" The Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary possesses 
1 The Petitioner has identitied his scart date as either January 20 15 or March 2015. 
2 The Petitioner submitted a U.S . organizational chart which shows the Beneficiary's proposed title as "'application 
.software engineer.'' 
2 
.
Mauer (!ll-l'vl- Inc. 
both speci al and advanced know ledge of the compan{s wareh ouse sys tem, and note s that, because 
the system was dev elo ped in the Philipp ines, the knowledge cannot be found in the United States 
and cannot be easily tran s ferred to another emplo yee. 
The Petiti oner argues that the Beneficiary po ssesses characteri stics of a speci alized knowledge 
employee consistent with the USC IS Policy Y1emorandum PM-602 -0 I I I, L-1 B Ac{judiculions Policy 
(Aug. J 7, 2015), https://www.us cis.go v/Jaws/poli cy-memoranda. Specific ally, the Petitioner contends 
that the Beneficiary has been emp loyed abroad in a capacity involvin g assignments that enhanced the 
company's productivit y and comp etiti veness , possesses knowled ge that is particularly beneficial to the 
compan y's competitive position in the marketpl ace, and that he possesses unique and proprie tary 
knowled ge. The Petitioner concludes by statin g that it would be <<imp oss ible to impar t this propri etary 
expertis e to another individual. " 
As a thres hold issue, we must determine whether the Petitioner estab lished that the Beneficiary 
posse sses spec ial ized knowle dge . lf the eviden ce is insuftic ient to establ ish that he posse sse s 
special ized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that he has been emp loyed abroad in a pos ition 
involving spec ialized knowl edge or would be e mplo yed in the Unit ed State s in a spec ialized 
knowled ge capac ity. Here, the Petitioner claim s that the Beneficiar y has both special and adva nced 
kno.,vledge. 
Once a petiti one r articulate s the nature of the claim ed specialized kno,vledge, it is t he we ight and 
type of ev idence which estab lishes whether or not the benefic iary ac tually possesses specialized 
kno wledge . We cannot mak e a factual determinati on regardin g a g iven benelici ary's specialized 
knowledge if the petition er docs not , at a mini mum, articulat e with specilicity the nature of its 
products and services or proce sses and procedure s, the natur e of the specifi c indust ry or field 
involved, and the nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how 
such knowledge is typicall y gained \Vithin the organ ization, and explain how and when the 
individu al beneficiary gained such knowled ge. 
A. Spe cial Knowledge 
Determining \Vhether a benefici ary has "special knowl edge" requir es review of a given beneficiary's 
knowled ge of how the petiti oni ng orga nization manufactures, produ ces, or develop s its products, 
servi ces, resea rch, equipment , techniques, management , or other interests. Because "spe cial 
know ledge" co nce rns knowled ge o f the petitioning organiz ation's products or servi ces and its 
appl ication in international mar kets, a petitioner may meet its burd en through evidence that the 
bene ficiary has knowledge that is distinct or uncom mo n in comparison to the knowledge of other 
simi larly em ployed workers in the particular indu stry. Knowledge that is commonly held throughout 
a petition er's indu stry or that can be eas ily impart ed from one person t o another is not conside red 
special knowledge. 
Here , the Petiti oner asserts that the Benefi ciary gai ned special kno ,vledge of the company's web­
based system as "one of only three senior programmers of the pioneer ing team asked to 
de velop" the system. The Petitioner explained that its group of com panie s has previously used a 
.... 
.) 
.
tvfolfer (~(1-M- Inc. 
LAN-b ased warehouse management system , and sought to convert it to the web-based system 
around the time it hire d t he Beneficiary in early 2015. 
The Petitioner emphasized that the Benefic iary, when hired, alrea dy had adva nced skills in web­
based applications and multiple "co mput er languages tools and development expe rtise," including 
Lotu s Note s C#.Nel, VB.t\et , 082, MSSQL, Javascript (JQuery , Angular JS), HTM L, CSS, and 
Boot strap. The Petitioner noted that ''the combination of all of these skills and utilization of them in 
the dev elopment of web applications is especially unique.'_' The Petitioner did not offer any support 
lor its claim that this represents a ''unique" com bination of skills in third-party techn ologies in 
comparison to other IT profe ssio nals who work on busines s systems and appl ications development. 
Further, the record contains no evidence related to the Beneticiary 's prior profes sional experience in 
this 1-icld. The Petitioner provided evidence that he has a degree in secondar y education and a degree 
in comput er science, earned in 2012 . Given its claim that the Bene ficiar y is one or the most 
advanced and experienced deve lopers employed by the foreign entity and possesses a "rare" sk illset 
with respect to web applications, it is reasonable to expect the Petitioner to exp lain the nature and 
scope of his industry experience in support of its claim that he brought an uncommon or highly 
advanced ski llset to the developm en t o f 
Nevert hele ss, the Petition er acknowledges that the Beneficiary's ski lls in third-party techno logies 
"do not nec essar ily evidence speciali zed knowledge ," but emphasizes that his knowledge is special 
becau se he used these technologi es in conjunction with his know ledge of the company's internal 
warehouse and logistics proces ses 10 create the syste-m, and to see it through conceptualization, 
deve lopment , a nd successful roll-out. Therefore, the Petitioner claim s that the Beneficiar y' s gained 
his specia l knowledge, in large part , from his role in the development of the system. 
The Petitioner indicates that in March 2015 , soon after the Philippines su bsidiary hired him, the 
Beneficiary "participa ted in extensive trainin g of developers hired to the team " which took 
place in Calitornia . It explained that this training included an ove rview of the 
Petitioner 's warehouse operation s in creating an initial concep t and goals for the 
system's design , and meeting "US colleagu es tasked \Vith the development and oversight of the 
trans ition and new platform development." The Petitioner did not state or documcnt_the length 
of Lhis "extensive training" or the number of employees who received it, nor has it ex plained the role 
of U.S. staff in the development of 
1 
The Petitioner did not establi sh that the Ikndiciary, as a 
brand new employee, required an cxLcnsive period of time to become famili ar with the company's 
warehouse operations, processes, logistic s and supply chain, and existing LAN-bascd warehouse 
management system prior to being assigned to work on the web-based using his exi sting third-_ 
party \Veb app lications skills. 
The Petitioner empha sized that this init ial training was ''ess ential tor the team to understand 
the platform ," but did not establi sh that thi s company-specific traini ng was length y or involved 
special knowledge . Rather , it appea rs that any IT professional with web-bas ed applications 
\ 
3 USCtS arrival and departure records show that the Beneficiary visited the United States from March 14 to March 22, 
2015, and from March I 2 to March 21 , 2016. 
4 
.
Malfer of 1-M- Inc. 
development experience would have been qualitied to work on the dev elopment of after a brief 
period of trai ning to become familiar \Nith the Petit ioner 's specific warehouse system requiremen ts. 
The Pet itioner did not identify any aspect of or its internal requ irement s that would estab lish 
how its warehouse manag ement sys tem is truly different or uncommon in comparison to that used by 
other companies in the sam e industry. Knowl edge that is proprietary or compan y-s pecilic must still 
be either special or advanced. 
The Petitioner exp lained that the Beneficiary attended a second training held in March 2016 that was 
offered only to "team lead s." Again , the Petitioner did not document the natw ·c or k ngth of this 
trai nin g o r idemify the number of participants. The Petitioner stated that this training invo lved 
observing "advanced warehouse operat ions ," understanding busines s needs for the tec hnica l 
design , performing system s anal ysis on how the operational need s s hould be implemented into 
and coding the system to meet the Petiti one r's requirements. 
In term s or the Beneficiar y's role in development, the Petition er noted that the Beneficiary 
create d stored procedures and relati onal da tab ase tables in MSSQL , contributed to the user interlace . 
ana lyzed the busine ss and system requirements for the system, converted it to a technical design 
used as a roadmap for develop ers, mentorcd junior developer s, and conducted code reviews. 
Ho'"''e ver, the Petitioner did not expl ai n with specificity how knowledge of the system, even as 
a member of the developmen t team throughout the system's conceptu aliza tion, resulted in the 
Benetici ary having special knowledge that is truly different or uncomm on compared to other web 
application developers working on bu sines s a pplications , either in the industry at large or within the 
petitioner 's organization. The record contains little technical informati on regardi ng the system 
itself in sup port of the Petitioner ' s claim that the Benefici ary is one of only a fev• people who would 
be capab le of understanding the sys tem at the level required for the U.S. position. 
In this regard , we note that the Petitioner refer s to the Beneficiary as a " pion eer deve loper" and at 
time s attributes the sy stem 's concept , deve lopm ent, and rollout almo st exclusively to him. However , 
the Pet itioner has not identi fied the number or type s of employees invo lved in development. 
The Petitioner has indicated that the syste m was developed in the Philippine s and the re fo re no U.S. 
employees have the know ledge nec essary to implem ent it at the company 's domestic warehouses. 
But the Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary's March 2015 trip to the United States involved an 
introduction to ·'US colleagues tasked with the development and oversight of the transition and 
new platform development." This statement undermines the Petitioner' s claim that know ledge of the 
system is limited to a team o f developer s based in the Philippines. 
Ther efore , the Petitione r' s explan ations and supporting evidence regarding the development o f 
are insufficient to support its claim that the Beneti ciary developed special knowledge of the sys tem 
that is uncommon within the company. Further, the fact that the sys tem was dev eloped internally for 
use a t the pet itioning organization ' s warehouse s does not establish that those who worked on its 
development possess knowledge that is trul y s pecial and could not be tran sferred to ex perience web 
applic ation developer with a short period of trainin g. The Petit ioner did not desc ribe the 
Bene ficiary 's claime.d knowledg e vvith sufficient speci ticity and ins tead reli es on the fact that he has 
5 
.
Maller of 1-M- Inc. 
bee n ass igned t9 since he was hired by the lure ign entity and a broad claim that he posse sses 
specialized knowledge becaus e he con tributed to the development of an interna l company sys tem. 
Overa ll ~ the record contains insufficie nt ev idence to establish that the Benel"iciary's knowledge of 
third-party web applicati on t ec hno logie s and tools combined with his tamil iarity with the 
Pet itioner's warehouse and logistics requirements and its syste m~ constitute ~ 'special 
knowledge" that is truly distinct or uncommon compared to knowledge generally possessed among 
similarly trained IT profe ssio nals in th e Petitioner's industr y. While we do not di scount the 
poss ibility that the Benefici ary' s role in the development of may have resu lted in his 
acquisition of specialized knowledge , the Petit ione r' s claim s are overl y broad and not supported by 
sufticic nt evidence to meet its burden of proo f 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner has not established , m the a lternative , t hat the Beneficiary possesses advance d 
knowledge. 
Determinations conceming "advanced knowl edge" require revi ew of a b enefici ary ~s knowledge of 
the petitioning organization 's processes and procedures. A petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidenc e that a given beneficiary has knowledge of or expertise in the organi zat ion 's processes and 
.procedures that is greatly develo ped or furthe r a long in progress , comple x ity, a nd unders tanding in 
co mparison to o1hcr work ers in the emplo yer's operations. Such advanced knowledge must be 
supp orted by evidence setti ng that knowledge apa rt from the eleme ntary or basic knowledge 
possessed by others. Also, as with specia l knowle dge , the petiti oner ordinarily mus t demo nstrate 
that a beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the particu lar industry and canno t 
be easi ly imparted from one person to another. 
As noted , the Petitioner has identifi ed the Benefici ary as one of three progra mm ers ass igned to 
devel op in the Philippine s. The Petitioner state s that, as a result of this assig nm ent, he has 
advanced knowledge of the system req uirement s, concept, and development, as well as 
advanced knowledge of rel ated proces ses needed for the continued development and deploy ment of 
the system. However, the recor d contains insunicient information regarding the size and scope of 
the . ceam assi gned to the project and the Beneficiary's exact role in its development. The 
Petitioner does not appe ar to claim that ever y employee assigned to the work on has 
specialized knowledge, yet it has not shown how the Beneficiary' s spec ific assignmen t resulted in 
his acq uisition of advanced kno wledge in comparison to his colleague s. 
Despi te the Pet itioner 's claim that was developed exclusi vely by its Philippines affiliate , it 
identified U.S.-ba sed employees res ponsible for d evelopment and "oversight of the tran s1t10n 
and new platform devel opment. " The foreign entity's organiza tional chart showed the Benefi ciary 
as a member of an eight-person team who reported to a " team lead, applications." The team 
members includt:d three other senio r app lication developers , two sta ff identified as "Deve loper 
Appl icati ons II," a lead business analyst, and a j unior inform at ion systems assoc iate. The Petitioner 
did not provide informa tion regarding the backgrounds or duties of other staiT on the same team or 
6 
.
Maller of 1-M- Inc. 
the U.S.-based employees working on \Vho provided training to the development team. The 
Petitioner broadly stated that the Beneficiary's skill set "is especially unique when compared with 
other developers on the team" but did not offer support for this statement. The organizational chart 
is insufficient to support the Petition er's claim that the Beneficiary' s was "leading the team," or its 
claim that he has "vit1ually created the system" and holds advanced knowledge of the system 
and related processes which is not held by the other application developer s. 
The Petitioner submitted one document as evidence of the Bene ficiary' s claimed advanced role on 
the development team -·a "Carri er Code Integration" technical design document authored by 
him in June 2016. This docum ent contains no specific references to The "overview " section 
slates: ';This document contains technical specifica tion and high level design of This 
document ts intended for Analyst , Developer s and QA.': The Petitioner did not explain what 
is or explain its connection to It simply stated that this document was intended 
;'to teach system Analysts , Developers, and Quality Assurance personnel about the underlying 
code of the system." This single technical design document for a company system with no 
documented connection to is insufficient to estabJish the Beneficiary's advanced knowledge of 
the syste m or its related processes. 
The Petitioner also emphasized the fact that the Beneficiary was tasked with deploying at its 
Florida facility in October 2016 . The Petitioner noted that he imparted technical knowledge 
to the local worktorce, trained warehouse personnel in functionalities , created manuals, and 
performed troubleshooting and support duties. The Petitioner did not explain how 1his assignmem 
cstabl ished his knowledge of the system as advanced compared to that of other persons assigned to 
the team in the U.S. and abroad . As noted, the Petitioner did not compare his dep loyment role 
to that of other members of the team, and it is unclear how many deployment s have been 
undertaken. While his knowledge of the syste m would be considered advanced compared to the 
warehouse personnel who are the end users, the Petitioner must still show that he possesses 
advanced knowledge in comparison to similarl y employed workers and that the knowledge cannot 
be readily transferred to another employee with a similar technical skill set. The Petitioner did not 
provide the information needed to make such a comparison. 
We ackno wledge the Petitioner' s claim that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a specialized 
knowledge employee consi stent with the USCIS Policy Memorandum N>"1-602-0 11 1, L-1 B 
Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memor anda. However, for 
the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not submiued sufficient evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is either special or advanced. While we do not doubt that 
was developed to improve the company's productivity and competi tivenes s in the marketplace, 
and the Benefic iary was one of the employees who performed duties related to its development, this 
characteristic alone is not probative of the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge. As noted in the 
memora ndum, the "characteristics" listed by the Petitioner are only "fac tors that USCIS may 
consider when determining whether a beneficiary's knowledge is specialized." Id. The 
memorandum emphasizes that "'ultimate ly, it is the weight and type of evidence that establishes 
whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge." /d. at 13. The Petitioner here has not 
7 
Matter of 1-M- Inc. 
submitted sutlicient evidence to establish how the Beneficiary's knowledge qualities as "special" or 
"advanced." 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, 
\Ve need not further address whether the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a posttiOn 
involving specialized knowledge or would be employed in the Cnited States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneliciary 
possesses specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dis~1issed. 
Cite as Mailer ofP.J- Inc., lD# 1137525 (AAO Apr. 12, 2018) 
8