dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-M- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Otlice 
DATE: JUNE 28, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an "IT/Distribution" company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a systems 
analyst 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. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-IB classification 
allows a corporation or other legal entity (includipg 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," for one continuous year within three 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 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). 
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 
.
Matter of 1-M-In c. 
"advanc ed" level of knowledge of the processes and proc edures of the company. Section 
214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § ll84(c)(2)(B). A petitioner may estab lish eligibility by subm itting 
evidence that the beneficiar y a nd the proffered position satisfy either prong of the statutory 
definition of spec ialized knowledge. 
Specialized knowledge is also defined as knowl edge 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). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is self-described as "the world's largest technology distributor and leading technology 
sales, marketing, and logistic s company." It states that it has 30,000 employees and $46.4 billion in 
sales. The Petitioner's Philippines subsidiary has employed the Beneficiary as an "application 
developer JI" since October 2015, and the Petition er seeks to transfer him to its California h eadqua rters 
to serve in the position of systems analyst at an annual salary of $90,000. The Beneficiary has a 
bachelor 's degree in inform ation technology. 
1 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
In the deni al decision, the Director tound that the Beneficiary's duties abroad and propos ed duties in 
the United States appear to be similar to that of a software devel oper as descri bed in the Department 
of Labor 's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH). Further, the Directo r found that the Petitioner 
did not explain with sufficient specificity how' the Beneficiary's familiarity with the company's 
products and processes equates to specialized knowledge, and had not shown how the Beneficiary's 
current and proposed positions require him to possess knowledge that is truly differ ent, uncommon, 
or advanced compared to that possessed by simil arly employed workers in the industry. 
On 
appeal , the Petitioner asserts that the Director ' s deci sio n impr operly relied on information found 
in the OOH, lacked a detailed analysis of the specific facts of the case , and barely mentioned the 
"most critical component of the case- that the beneficiary was critical in the design, archi tecture and 
development of [the comp any's ) " The Peti tioner 
emphasizes that the Beneficiary possesses both special and advanc ed knowledge of , and notes 
that, becaus e the system was developed internally in the Philippin es, the knowledge cannot be found 
in the United States and cannot be eas ily transferr ed to another employee. 
The Petitioner further argues that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a specialized knowledge 
employee consistent with the USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-IB Adjudications Policy 
(Aug. 17, 2015), https://www .. uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. Specifically, the Petition er contends 
that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity involving assignments that enhanced the 
company's productivity and competitiveness, po~sesses knowledge that can be gained only through 
prior experience with the petitioning organization and cannot be easily transferr ed, and that the 
Benefici ary's knowledge of the system is complex and of a highl y technical nature . 
2 
.Matter of 1-M- Inc. 
As a threshold issue, we must determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. If the evidenc e is insufficient to establish that he possesses 
speciali zed knowledge, then we cannot conclude that he has been employed abroad in a position 
involving specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United 
States in a s pec ialized 
knowledge capacity . Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has both special and advanced 
knowledge . 
Once a petition er articulat es the nature of the claimed specializ ed knowl edge, it is the weight and 
type of evidence which establishes whether or . not the beneficiary actually posse sses specialized 
knowledge. We cannot mak e a factual determination regardin g a g iven beneficiar y's special ized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not , at a minimum, articulate with specifici ty the nature of its 
products and services or proce sses and procedures, the nature of the specific industr y or field 
involved , and the nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petiti one r should also desc ribe how 
such knowledg e is typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when 'the 
individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
A. Special Knowledge 
Determining whether a beneficiary has "special knowledge" require s review of a given beneficiary 's 
knowledge of how the petitioning organization manufactures, produc es, or develops its prod ucts, 
services, research, equipment , techniques, manag ement, 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 burd en through ev idence that the 
beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in compari son to the knowledg e of other 
similarly employed workers in the particular industry. Knowledg e that is commonly held throughout 
a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to another is not considered 
special knowledge. 
. . 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiar y gained spec ial knowledge of the co mpany's web-
based system as "part of the team" that developed the system. The Petitio ner exp lained that its 
group of companies has previou sly used a LAN-ba sed warehouse management system, and so ught to 
convert it to the web-based syst em in 2015. 1 The Petitioner refers to the Beneficiar y as an "initial" 
or "pioneering" developer of who "concep~ualized, developed , and rolled out" the sys tem. 
The Petition er emphasized that the Beneficiary ~ when hired, already had advanced skills in web­
based applications and multipl e "computer languages tools and deve lopment expertise ," including 
, . , _ _ _ - --- and 
_ The Petitioner acknowledged that some of these techn ologies " may not be unique," but 
stated that "the combination of all of these skill s and utilization of them in the de velopment of web 
applications is especially unique." The Petitioner did not offer any support for its claim that this 
1 The Petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity indi cating that it s tarted the project in January 20 15 and 
ass igned the Beneficiary to that project when it hired him in Octobe r of that yea r. At the time, it had just rolle d out the 
first version o f with basic warehouse capabilities. · 
3 
.
Matt er of 1-M- In c. 
represents a "unique " combination of skills in third-part y technologies in comparison to other IT 
profess ionals who work on business systems and web -based applications deve lopment. In fact, the 
Peti tioner initially stated that the Ben eficiary acquir ed skills in _ and 
"by completing his bachelor's degree in Inform ation Tech nology" in 2012. The 
Beneficiar y's resume also shows that he had more than two yea rs of experience with an unrelated 
emplo yer, where he devel ope d applic ations for and payroll sys tems . Given the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary is one of the most advanced and exper ienced deve lopers 
employed by the foreign entity and posses ses a "rare" skillset with respect to web applications, it is 
reasonable to expect the Petition er to explain how he brought an uncomm on or highl y adva nced 
skillset to the development of 
Nevertheless, the Petitioner acknowledges that the Beneficiar y's skills in third- par ty techno logies 
alone "do not necessarily evidence spec ialized knowledge ," but emphasizes that his knowledge is 
special becau se he used these technologies in conjunction with his knowledge of the company's 
intern al warehouse and logistics processes to' crea te the sys tem, and to see it through 
conceptualization, developm ent, and successfurroll-out. Therefore , the Petition er claim s that the 
Beneficiary gained his special knowl edge , in large part, from his role in the development of the 
sys tem . The Petitione r claims that he has special knowledge of both the sys tem and of the 
company's warehouse, supply chain, logistics, and efficiency requir ements. 
In terms of the Beneficiary's role in 's developm ent, the Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary 
served as a designer, code developer , unit tester, and functional /technical instructo r on the sys tem. 
Howeve r, the Petitioner did not explain with specificity how knowledge of the sys tem, even as 
a member of the development team, resulted in the Benefic iary having specia l knowl edge that is 
truly different or uncomm on compared to other web applicati on developers working on business 
applications usi ng tech nologies. The record contains little technical information regarding the 
syste m itself in support of the Petitioner' s claim that the Beneficia ry is one of only a few 
people who would be capable of understanding the system at the level requi red for the U.S . position. 
In addition, we note that the Petitioner refers to the Beneficiary as a "pioneer develop er" and at times 
attributes 's concept , development , and rollout almost exclusivel y to him. However , the 
Petitioner indicat es that the foreign entity hired ~im in October 20 15, at a time when the first rollout 
of had already occurr ed. The Petitioner did not support its claim that the Beneficiar y 
"conceptualized" or "pioneer ed"'the system given that it already exi sted when he joined the 
foreign company. 
With respect to the Benefici ary's claim ed special knowledge of the com pany's specific ware house 
and logistics requirements , the Petition er stated, that the Benefici ary visited its " · · 
·" in _ California to attend " kn~wl edge transfer sess ions at the warehouse" and to 
become famili ar with and advance his know~ edge of the compa ny's ware house and logistics 
proce sse s. The Petition er did not state or document the length of this trainin g2 or the numb er of 
2 USCIS arrival and departure recor ds show that the Beneficia ry visited the Un ited States from June 24, 20 16 until July 
4, 2016. ' 
4 
.
Matter ofi-M-Inc. 
employees who rece ived it. Further, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary, as a brand 
new employee in October 2015, required an extensive period of time to become familiar with the 
company's warehouse operations, proce sses, logistic s and supply chain, and existing LAN-based 
warehouse man agement system prio r to being assigned to work on the web-based using his 
existing third-party web applications skills. In fact, it appears that this U.S.-based training in 
company processes occurred after the Beneficiary had already been working on for many 
months. The Petitioner did not identify or document any other company-specific training required 
for the Benefic iary's currently application developer II position abroad . 
The Petitioner did not describe the Beneficiary's claimed knowledge with sufficient spec ifici ty. 
Instead, it relies on the fact that he has been assign ed to since he was hired by the foreign 
entity and a broad claim that he possesses special knowledge because he contributed to the 
development of an internal company system. The fact that the system was developed internally for 
use at the petitioning organization's warehouses does not establish that all employees who worked 
on its development possess knowledge that is· truly special and could not be transfe rred to an 
expe rienced web application developer through a short period of training. Knowledg e that is 
proprietary or company-specific must still be either special or advanced. 
Overall, the record contains insufficient evidence to establish that the Benefici ary' s know ledge of 
third-party web application technologies and tools combined with his familiarity with the 
Petitioner's warehouse and logistics requirements and its system, const itute "special 
knowledge" that is truly distinct or uncommon compared to knowl edge generally possess ed among 
similarly trained IT profe ssionals in the Petitioner 's industr y. While we do not discount the 
possibility that the Beneficiary ' s role in the ·development of may have resulted in his 
acquisition of special knowledge, the Petitioner's claims are overly broad and not supported by 
sufficient evid ence to meet its burden of proof. 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner has not established, in the alternative , that the Beneficiary possesses adva nced 
knowledge. 
Determinations concerning "adv anced knowledge" require review of a benefi ciary's knowledge of 
the petitioning orga nization 's processes and procedures. A petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidence that a given beneficia ry has knowledge of or expertise in the organizat ion's proce sses and 
procedures that is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and unde rstand ing 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. Also, as with special knowledge , the petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate 
that a beneficiar y's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the particular industr y and cannot 
be easily imparted from one person to another. ; 
Here, the Petition er has not sufficiently identified the nurriber or types of employees involved in 
s develop ment. The Petitioner has indicated that the system was developed in the Philippine s 
5 
.
Matter of 1-M-Inc. 
and therefore no U.S. employees have the knowledge necessary to implement it at the company 's · 
domestic warehouses. But the Petitioner also stated that " [f]or US counterpart there are some 
developers partly involved in the development of and added some to focus primarily on the 
project [sic]." This statement undermines the Petitioner's claim that knowledge of the syst em 
is limited to a team of developers based in the: Philippines, and its claim , made elsewhere in the 
record, that no U.S.-based developers are familiar with the system. 
As noted, the Petitioner has identified the Beneficiary as part of that team assigned to develop 
in the Philippines. The Petitioner states that , as a result of this assignment, he has advanced 
knowledge of the system requirements, . concept, and developmen t, its well as adva nced 
knowledge of related processes needed for the continued development and deployment of the 
system. However, the record contains insufficient information regarding the size and scope of the 
team assigned to the project and the Beneficiary 's exact role in its development. The 
Petitioner does not appear to claim that every · employee assigned to the work on has 
specialized knowledge, as it claims that " even other developers" cannot perform the same 
duties as the Beneficiary. However, it has not shown how the Beneficiary 's specific assignment 
resulted in his acquisition of advanced knowledge in comparison to his collectgues. The Beneficiary 
had less than two years of experience with the foreign entity at the time of filing, and, as noted, 
joined the Philippines-based project team well after the project bega n. 
The foreign entity's organizational chart showed the Beneficiary as a member of a six-person team 
who reported to a "team lead, applications." The team member s included three senior application 
developers, the Beneficiary and another " Developer Applications 11," and a "busines s analyst -
warehouse management information systems." In addition, the chart showed other applications team 
leads who each had their own development teams. The Petitioner did not provide information 
regarding the backgrounds or duties of other staff on the same or similar teams or those of the U.S.­
based employees working on . The Petitioner brqadly stated that the Beneticiary's ski ll set "is 
especially unique when compared with other developers on the team" but did not offer su pport for 
this statement. The organizational chart is insufficient to support the Petitioner's claim that the 
Beneficiary himself "virtually created the system" and possesses advanced knowledge of the 
system and related proce sses not held by the other application developers . . 
The Petitioner emphasized the fact that the Bt:neficiary provided application demonstra tions and 
trainings for current and potential users of and "experienced" an in-hous e deployment at the 
group's warehouse in Sweden . The Petitioner also stated that he would provide " in-depth trainings" 
to U.S . employees, but did not include these duties among its detailed breakdown of the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties. The Petitioner did not document these demonstration , deploymen t, 
and training assignments or explain how they establish the Beneficiary's knowledge of the 
system as advanced compared to that of other persons assigned to the --- ·- · project in the United 
States and abro ad. While the Beneficiary ' s knowledge of the syste m may be considered advanced 
compared to the warehouse personnel who are the system's end users , the Petitioner must still show 
that he possesses advanced knowledge in comparison to similarly 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. 
6 
.
Matterofl-M- Inc. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Be_neficiary posse sses characteristics of a 
specialized knowledge employee consistent with the USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111 , L-
1 B Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015) , https://www.uscis.gov/l aws/p olicy-m emoranda. However, 
for the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not submitted suffici ent evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is e ither .special or advanced. Whil e we do not doubt that 
was developed to improve the company's P,roductivity and compe titiveness in the marke tplace , 
and the Beneficiary is one of the employees who 'performs duties related to s development, this 
characteristic alone is not probative of the Beneficiary's specializ ed knowledge. As noted in the 
memorandum , the "characteristics" listed by the Petitioner are only "factors that USCJS may 
consider when determining whether a beneficiary 's knowledge is specialized." id. The 
memorandum emphasizes that "ultimately, it is the weight and type of evidence that establishes 
whether the beneficiary possesses speci alized kpowledge." /d. at 13. The Petitioner here has not 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish how the Beneficiary's knowledge qual ities as "spec ial" or 
"advanced. " · 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstr ate d that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, 
we need not further address whether the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a posJtiOn 
involving specialized knowl edge or would be ~ employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismis sed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
possesses speci alized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of 1-M-Inc., ID# 1397220 (AAO June 28, 2018)