dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

.
U.S. Citizenship 
~d Immigration 
Services 
MAITER OF P-C-S- , LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 13, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , an information technology consulting firm , seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a technical solutions lead under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lB classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (incl uding its 
affiliate or subsidiary) to tran sfer a qualifying foreign employee with "spec ialized knowledge " to 
work temporarily in the United States. 
The Director of the California Service Cente r denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge; has been employed 
abroad as a manager, executive , or in a specialized knowledg e capacity; and will be emp loyed in the 
United States 
in a specialized knowledge capacity . 
On appea l, the Petitioner asse rts that the decision was in error because the Petitioner subm itted 
enough evidence to establish eligibilit y. 
Upon de novo review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-18 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying orga nization must 
have employed the beneficiary " in a capac ity that is manageri al, exec utive, or involves specialized 
know ledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the benefici ary's appl icat ion for 
admission into the United States. Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addit ion, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporar ily to con tinue render ing his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affi liate thereof in a specia lized knowledge capacity. Jd. The petitio ner 
must also establ ish that the beneficiary ' s prior education, training , and employment qualify him or 
her to perform the intend ed services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( 1)(3) . 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Pet itioner and its foreign parent ent ity provide IT services to various customers. One of the 
organization's major client s is a n investmen t management firm. The Petitione r stated that 
.
Matter of P-C-S-, LLC 
its "two major jobs" for the client are "managing and ensuring the completion of different 
components of the night cycle a nd " The night cycle tasks "produ ce the 
risk measures and other supporting output s to be used by . . . portfoli o managers for their 
trading." '' is the firm' s produ ction system for ex-ante risk management." 
The Petitioner's parent entity hired the Benefici ary in mid-2013, immediately after the Benefi ciary 
compl eted his baccalaureate degree. The Petitioner stated : "Over the s pan of 4 years, the 
beneficiary has been Technic al Operations lead for the project of managing a nd ensuring the 
compl etion of different aspe cts o f night cycle and The 
Pet itioner states that it require s the Bene ticiary' s service s in the United States "to move forward with 
advancement in the servi ces," includi ng develo pin g a standard ized support model for the night cycle 
and "settin g up a parallel disas ter recove ry environment. " 
Ill. SPECLALIZED KNOWLEDG E 
The Director determined that the Petition er did not establi sh that the Bene fi ciary possesses 
knowledge that is special or advanced compared to others in the same f ield. The Director also found 
that the record did not establish that the Benefici ary was pre viously empl oye d in a pos ition that was 
manage rial, executive, or involved speci alized knowledge, and that the U.S. pos ition involves a 
speci al or advanced level of knowledge. 
As a threshold issue, we must determine whether the Petitioner estab lished that the Ben eficiar y 
possesses spe cialized knowl edge. If the evide nce i s insu fficient to estab lish that h e possesses 
specialized knowl edge, then w e cannot co nclude that the Bene ficiary' s past and i ntended future 
employment involve speciali zed knowledge. • 
Under the 
statute, speci alized knowledge co nsists o f eith er: ( 1) a " special" knowle dge of the 
company product and its a pplication in international mark ets; or (2) an " advanced" level of 
knowledge of the proce sses and procedures of the compan y. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. 
Specialized knowledge is also defined as knowledge posses sed by a n individual of the petitioning 
organization's product, service, research, equipm ent, techniqu es, manage ment or other interests and its 
application in internatio nal markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the 
organization's processes and pr~cedures . 8 C.F .R. § 2 14.2(l)(l )(ii)(D). 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative term s, determ ining w hether a given beneficiary's 
knowledge is "special " or "advanced" inh erently require s a comparison of the benefic iary's 
knowledge against that of others. With respect to e ither special or advanced knowledge, the 
petiti oner ordin arily must demonstrate that the beneficiar y' s knowledge is not comm only held 
throughout the particul ar indu stry a nd cannot b e eas ily imp arted from one perso n t o a nother. The 
ult imate question is whether the petitioner h as me t its burden of demo ~ s t ra t ing by a preponde rance 
1 The Peti tioner docs not clai m that the Beneficiary was empl oye d abroad in an executive o r manage rial capacity. 
2 
.
Matter of P-C-S-, LLC 
of the evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is special or advanced, and that the 
beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 2 
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. 
The Petitioner stated: "The beneficiary has been involved with the services provided by the 
Petitioner to the End client since he joined the petitioner in June, 2013." 3 The Petitioner listed 
several "major applications developed under the leadership of the beneficiary" and stated: "The 
beneficiary has gained ... specialized knowledge as a result of being part of the team which 
developed the tools and applications and by acquiring the experience of working with the tools and 
application[s] over the years." 
The record shows that the Beneficiary did not achieve his current position through promotion. 
Rather, the foreign entity hired him as a technical solutions lead immediately upon his graduation 
from college, indicating that the Beneficiary did not need any experience with the company to 
qualify for that position. 
In the denial notice, the Director acknowledged that the Beneficiary's employment has given him 
experience and job-related training, but the Director found that the Petitioner had not "demonstrated 
how the beneficiary's education, training, and experience have resulted in specialized knowledge." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that its earlier response to a request for evidence addressed all the 
issues that the Director raised in the denial notice, and satisfied four out of six factors listed in 
USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-IB Adjudications Policy 8 (Aug. 17, 2015), 
http://www.uscis.gov/lcgal-rcsourccs/policy-memoranda. The memorandum did not indicate that 
these factors are infallible indicators of eligibility. Rather, the memorandum specified that "[t]he 
presence of one or more of these (or similar) factors, when assessed in the:: totality of the 
circumstances, may be sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a beneficiary 
has specialized knowledge." !d. (emphasis added). 
Below, we will discuss the relevant exhibits in the context of the cited memorandum. 
2 Although some aspects of the "special" and "advanced" knowledge definitions may overlap, we will address each 
clement individually. 
3 The record contains conflicting evidence regarding the Beneficiary's starting date with the foreign entity. The 
Beneficiary's employment agreement is dated July 28, 2013, and the Beneficiary's diploma and final semester transcript 
from are dated July 19, 2013. The Beneficiary ' s resume gave the hiring date as "Jan 2013.'' 
3 
.
Matter of P-C-S-, LLC 
The beneficiary possesses knowledge that is particularly beneficial to the petitioning 
organization 's competitiveness in the marketplace. · 
On appeal, the Petitioner assert s that it met this criterion through document s that "show the number 
. of people working under the Benefici ary, papers and projects the beneficiary was involved with, and 
the financial gains accrued with the help of the Beneficiary's special knowledge.') 
The Petitioner does not explain how "the number of people working under the Beneficiary" (six 
subordinates, on an organizational chart showing over 200 names) relates to the organization's 
competitiveness in the marketplace. The Petitioner had previously claimed that the Beneficiary "has 
been the key employee for the petitioner in providing product and serv ices to the end client, 
The organizational chart identifies employees only by name , not by title or department, 
and it provides no indication as to how many of the company's employees work for or how 
many other clients _the company serves . 
Examples of the Beneficiary 's work product illuminate what the Beneficiary has been doing for his 
employer's client, but the Petitioner has not shown how this information demonstrates that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is beneficial to his employer's compe titiveness in the marke tplace. 
A letter from the company's accountant tabulated quarterly payments to the company 
between April 2015 and September 2016 . Once again, the correlation between these figures and the 
company's competitiveness is not self-evident. The Petitioner provided no basis for comparison to 
show that the cited figures are higher than those earned by other companies, or even that 
pays more per man-hour for the Beneficiary's work than for that of other qualitied workers of 
comparable rank . 
The cited policy memorandum include s this critical passage: "Determinin g whether knowledge is 
' special' or 'advanced' inherently require·s a comparison of the beneficiary ' s knowledge against that 
of others. The petitioner bears the burden of establishing such a favorab le comparison." /d. at 7. 
The submitted documents make no such comparison. Instead, the Petitioner simply names the 
Beneficiary's subordinates and adds up what has paid for the foreign company's services 
over a year and a half. 
The beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity involving assignments that 
have significantly e nhanced the employer's productivity , competiTiveness, image, or 
financial positio n. 
The Petitioner states that the aforementioned le~ter from the foreign company's acco untant "shows 
how the Petitioner has gained financially becau se of the Beneficiary. " This letter shows what 
paid for the company's services , but provides no other tigures to show the overall effect of 
these payments on the company's financial position. 
4 
.
Matter of P-C-S-, LLC 
Other evidence in the record casts doubt on the accountant's letter. The accountant indicated that 
paid the company US$3,325, 457 from April 2015 to March 2016. Under the excha nge rate 
in effect on March 31, 2016 , that amount equals Rs220 ,062,982 .4 But an audit report in the record 
shows that the compa ny's total "I ncome from Se'rvices" that year was Rs212,440,318. These figures 
cannot both be correct
, as the alleged payments are greater than the company's . entire 
reported income for the same period. Agreeme nts betwe en and entities within the 
petitioning organization do not specify fees to be paid, and therefore they do not resolve the 
discrepancy . 
Even setting aside the financial discrepancy , the amount of the fees paid by 
inherently show that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge . 
does not 
Finances aside, the Petitioner refers to a letter from the foreign company "which clearly states the 
Beneficiary' s position and duties in the Petitioner company [sic]." The Petitioner did not spec ify 
whether this letter relates to the company's productivity, competitiveness, or image. We will discuss 
more detail s of the letter below, in the context of another factor listed in the 2015 memorandum. 
The beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge normally can be gained only 
through prior experience with the petitioning organization. 
The letter from the Petitioner 's foreign parent company indicate s that the Beneficiary's "4 years of 
experience dedicated to project" has given him "specialized knowledg e of various 
environments, various in-house tools ... and the other tools . .. which are essential in a smoo th 
working of Night cycle." The Petitioner has identified these tools but has not explained how the 
Benefici ary's knowledge of them is special or advanced, except to cite his four years of ex perience. 
The employer asserted that "it would take at least 4-5 years [for a new employee] to be ready for the 
job." The Beneficiary, however, was hired into_: that position with no expe rience. The Beneficiary 
had about four years of experience at the time of filing, but it does not follow that he took four years 
to reach his current level of knowledge , or that a new emp loyee would do the same. The record does 
not specify what the Beneficiary is now able to· do which he could not do when the compan y first 
hired him into his current position in 2013. · 
The Benefici ary's training also relates to the remaining cited factor from the memorandum. 
The beneficiary possesses knowledge of a product or process that cannot be easily 
tran~ferred or taught to another individual without significant economic cost or 
inconvenience (because, for example, such knowledge may require substamial 
training, work experience, or education). · 
4 
On March 31,2016 , US$1 exchanged for Rs66.17526015. Source: https://www .xc.com/currency lables/?from=INR& 
datc=2016-03-3l (last visited June 6, 2018) . 
5 
.
Matter of P-C-5-, LLC 
The Petitioner states that training another employee to reach the Beneficiary's level of knowledge 
"would involve a long period of time and substantial capital. " The Petitioner submits copies of 
various training materials, but does not establish how much time it took to train the Bene ficiary to 
his current level of knowledge. 
The Petitioner listed various platforms and tools for which the Beneficiary has receiv ed training, 
some of which are third-party programs and platforms. Training in those third-party products is not 
exclusive to the Petitioner. Many of the training materials in the record appear to have been 
prepared by which raises the question of how such training could be exclusive to the 
petitioning organization as the Petitioner has claimed. The Beneficiary also has knowledge of 
"various in-house tools," but the record ofters little information about this training except to imply a 
link to the length of the Beneficiary's experience with the company. 
The record does not establish how much time the Beneficiary spent in training class es . Furthermore, 
the bulk of the submitted training materials are formatted as printouts of electronic slide 
presentations , consistent with training sessions of relatively short duration. The record also does not 
establish when the Beneficiary received the training, which is relevant because it may spea k to how 
much prior experience was necessary in order for the Beneficiary to absorb th~ training prop erly. 
A. Special Knowledge 
Special knowl edge concerns knowledge of the petitioning organi zation' s products or services and its 
application in international markets. To establish that a beneficiar y has special knowledge, the 
petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary 's knowledg e is distinct or 
uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the industry. 
The current statutory and regulatory definitions of "specialized knowledge" do not include a 
requirement that a beneficiary's knowledge be proprietary. Thu s, 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 indu stry. It is 
reasonable to believe that all information technology companie s develop intern al tools and 
methodologies. Without a substantive explanation or evidence, the Petitioner has not distinguished 
its role from that of other information technology firms. The Petitioner has not sufficienll y 
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 otherwi se qualified 
worker to perform the duties required of the proposed position. 
In this instance, the Petitioner has not provide~ a basis for comparison. with similarly employed 
workers in the industry. The Petitioner has identified some proprietary tools, but has not shown that 
mastery of those tools requires a different level of knowledge than other workers attain by using 
comparable tools at other companies. 
6 
Matter of P-C-5-, LLC 
The record lacks probative evidence demonstrating that extensive training is required to perform the 
Beneficiary's past and proposed duties. 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 workers in similar positions 
in the industry, or that it would require up to a full year or longer to acquire the knowledge needed 
for the position. 
For the above reasons, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special 
knowledge of the company's services and their application in international markets. 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
Because "advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, 
the Petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the Beneficiary has knowledge of or 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. 
The Petitioner has not submitted the necessary evidence to differentiate the Beneficiary's knowledge 
from other employees within the petitioning organization. The Petitioner does not describe how this 
Beneficiary's work and responsibilities differ from other employees or how other employees gained 
their knowledge of the petitioning organization. The Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced within the petitioning organization's own operations. 
In sum, the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's combination of experience and 
training has given him knowledge that is distinct or uncommon compared to similarly employed 
workers 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 operations. 
While the Beneficiary may be a valuable employee who benefits the petitioning organization 
through his familiarity with the company's systems, the record does not establish that the 
Beneficiary possesses special or advanced knowledge. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-C-S-, LLC, lD# 1151378 (AAO June 13, 2018) 
7