dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF N-T- CORP. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 3I, 20I7 
PETITION: FORM I-I29, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which provides information technology services to clients in the telecommunications 
industry, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a senior business analyst under the L-IB 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 10I(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(15)(L). The L-IB 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary: (1) possesses specialized knowledge; (2) has been 
employed abroad in a position that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge; 
(3) will be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity; and ( 4) will not be 
employed offsite as labor for hire by another company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and argues that the Director "neglected to 
consider certain facts and circumstances" while applying "an inappropriate level of scrutiny." 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-I nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the 
criteria outlined in section IOI(a)(I5)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in position that 
involved specialized knowledge capacity, for one continuous year within the three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. 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. 
The statute defines specialized knowledge as a special knowledge of the company product and its 
application in international markets or an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of 
the company. Section 2I4(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I184(c)(2)(B). Our regulations define 
specialized knowledge as: 
Matter of N-T- Corp. 
[S]pecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization's 
product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management or other interests and its 
application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in 
the organization's processes and procedures. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
An individual L-IB petition filed on Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, must include 
evidence that the beneficiary's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge; evidence that the beneficiary's prior 
education, training and employment qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the 
United States; and a detailed description of the services to be performed in a specialized knowledge 
. capacity in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The first issue we must address is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. If the Petitioner has not met this threshold requirement, then it 
cannot demonstrate that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the 
United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
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. 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. In this instance, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary possesses special knowledge, not 
advanced knowledge. 
l 
As "special" is a relative term, determining whether a given beneficiary's knowledge is "special" 
inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge against that of others. The 
petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is' not commonly held 
throughout the particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. The 
ultimate question is whether the petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge or \expertise is special, and, if so, that the 
beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 
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. The petitioner must specifically describe its products and services or pr9cesses 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 individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
2 
.
Matter of N-T- Corp. 
Here, the Petitioner's foreign subsidiary hired the Beneficiary as a business analyst in October 2013, 
almost two years and eight months before the Petitioner filed the Form 1-129 in June 2016. On the 
Form 1-129, the Petitioner described the Beneficiary's duties abroad as "[t]ranslating business 
processes and high-level business requirements to functional specifications. Developing technical 
design documents and reviewing systems requirements specifications." The Petitioner submitted 
additional descriptions of the Beneficiary's current and proposed duties in a supporting letter, and 
further stated that the Beneficiary gained further expertise during his employment with other 
companies from 2006 to 2013. However, it did not submit his resume or a description of his prior 
employment. 
The Petitioner's specialized knowledge claim centers around two proprietary systems. The first, 
"provides a wholly­
integrated Cable, High Speed Data & Telephony solution for managing multiple service offerings on 
a single integrated work order." The second, 
"provides centralized, unified, up-to-date view of the customer, product, services, 
resources, faults, trouble tickets, performance event history, and other important data." 
I 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had completed several "proprietary product and module 
training sessions by virtue of his extensive support of our clients with the following ... software 
solutions applications." The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary had undergone 
extensive on-the­
job training and listed six applications, including and The Petitioner indicated that 
the Beneficiary used the applications while working on assignments with the foreign entity's clients. 
The Petitioner did not otherwise describe or document the "product and module training sessions" 
that constituted the Beneficiary's claimed on-the-job training. 
A screen capture listed the Beneficiary's internal training courses with the foreign entity: 
Name 
Business Analy~t School 
Functional Design Activities and Deliverables 
Welcome on board 
Privacy and security awareness 
Solution Delivery Implementation Methodology and 
Company Processes 
Hours 
54 
8 
1 
4 
Start Date 
9/26/2014 
9/22/2014 
10/7/2013 
10/18/2013 
11/7/2013 
The Petitioner has not explained which of these courses, if any, dealt with or The 
only course lasting more than eight hours was the "Business Analyst School" course (which 
actually 
consisted of several shorter modules). All the courses, together, represent about two weeks of 
training, and therefore the list of courses does not show that the Beneficiary has received a high level 
of training that would be difficult to impart to other employees. As the Petitioner did not document 
or sufficiently describe the Beneficiary's on-the-job training, we cannot determine when or how the 
Beneficiary gained the claimed specialized knowledge in or 
3 
.
Matter of N-T- Corp. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary: 
has gained experience in numerous critical facets of our enterprise including in-depth 
and customized implementation, and delivery and technical follow-up consulting. He 
has also been intricately involved with business process and solution consulting by 
understanding customers' pain points, brainstorming, and leading the solution 
implementations. Additionally, he has been involved in delivering detailed responses 
to Requests for Proposals (RFP' s) which require extensive knowledge of our 
company's products in order to create a comprehensive technical solution to a 
proposed client's core need, as well _as in depth knowledge of our competitor's 
products in order to properly contrast the available solutions. Most significantly, he 
has gained a high level knowledge of [the Petitioner's] proprietary and Active 
Mediation Manager software modules which enable him to provide effective support 
services to our customers around the world. 
The Petitioner submitted examples of user story narratives that the Beneficiary wrote, alone or with 
others. The Petitioner described the purpose of these documents: 
User narratives link discrete business activities into a single flow that allows business 
analysts and software developers to understand how the customer goes about 
executing their existing business process. The narratives provide[] context and 
define[] the end goal for the process. They are created as one of the first steps in 
customizing a software solution for the customer and serve as a framework for 
creating business process and technical workflows .... Without the benefit of the 
training he has received, and the specialized knowledge gained during his tenure at 
[the petitioning company], and the benefit of his prior education and technical 
experience, it would be impossible for him to draft this key project documentation. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner had not substantiated its assertion that the 
Beneficiary had "received extensive training." The Director stated that "mere familiarity with an 
organization's product or service does not constitute specialized knowledge" for the purposes of the 
L-1 B nonimmigrant classification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it "provided an overwhelming amount of corroborating evidence 
to demonstrate the [Beneficiary's] specialized role." The Petitioner states that "USCIS failed to 
appropriately consider the attestations and evidence," and "misapplied the 'preponderance of 
evidence standard."' 
In visa .petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility. Matter of 
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence 
that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
376 (AAO 2010). In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality. !d. The director must examine each piece of evidence for 
4 
.
Matter of N-T- Corp. 
relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context ofthe totality of 
the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. 
While the Petitioner correctly states that it submitted considerable documentary evidence of the 
Beneficiary's work product, the evidence does not address a key deficiency noted by the Director, 
specifically, that the Petitioner did not support its claim that the Beneficiary received extensive 
training in order to be able to perform his job duties as a business analyst. 
The current statutory and regulatory definitions of "specialized knowledge" do not include a 
I 
requirement that a beneficiary's knowledge be proprietary. However, a petitioner might satisfy the 
current standard by establishing that a beneficiary's purported specialized knowledge is proprietary, 
as long as the petitioner demonstrates that the knowledge is either "special" or "advanced." By 
itself, simply claiming that knowledge is proprietary will not satisfy the statutory standard. Even 
when a petitioner's products are proprietary, it must still establish that qualities of its products or 
processes require its employees to have knowledge that is truly different from what is commonly 
found in the industry. The fact that other workers may not have the same level of experience with 
the petitioner's products or processes applied to a specific client is not enough to equate to special 
knowledge. 
In order to determine whether the Beneficiary's knowledge of the Petitioner's proprietary products 
should be deemed special knowledge, we need to examine how much additional training the 
Beneficiary, as an experienced information technology professional, needed in order to be able to 
successfully perform the duties of a business analyst with the foreign entity. If the Beneficiary 
already possessed most of the knowledge needed for the position prior to joining the foreign entity 
and was able to almost immediately perform the duties of the position, then we must conclude that 
knowledge of and was easily imparted to him and, although proprietary, is not 
significantly different from the knowledge commonly held by other similarly employed workers in 
the industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional technical details about the Beneficiary's work, but 
these details do not inherently show that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. The 
Petitioner sta,tes that the Beneficiary's "[d]rafting and editing product-use and operations guides is 
clear evidence of his development and acquisition of specialized knowledge regarding these 
products," because "[ o ]nly those who have the necessary developed knowledge ... would be-able to 
provide the necessary solutions ... by either enhancing or rebuilding the program." 
However, the Beneficiary drafted one of the aforementioned guides, ' 
on April 8, 2014. At that time, the 
Beneficiary had worked for the foreign entity for six months, and had undergone six hours of 
documented training with the company, five of which were general in nature, leaving a one-hour 
course in "Solution Delivery Implementation 
Methodology and Company Processes." The April 
2014 functional design specification is not consistent with the Petitioner's claim that only an 
employee with significant experience and training is capable of producing such technical writings. 
5 
.
Matter of N-T- Corp. 
Email messages show that the Beneficiary communicated with other employees of the Petitioner and 
its wider multinational organization about various project-related issues. Some email chains show 
queries directed at the Beneficiary, while others begin with questions from the Beneficiary regarding 
issues that have arisen during a particular project. The business analyst role, as described in the 
record, inherently, requires frequent interactions with both internal technical staff and clients so these 
emails provide an illustration of the Beneficiary' s day-to-day duties without providing much 
additional insight into the claimed specialized knowledge . While some of the messages demonstrate 
the Beneficiary's familiarity with a particular project, but the Petitioner has not shown that these 
interactions do not take place in the absence of specialized knowledge, or established the knowledge 
levels of the other participants. 
The Petitioner states that, when determining whether the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge, the proper point of comparison is with others in the field or industry rather than other 
\, employees within the Petitioner 's multinational organization. The Petitioner states: "Pursuant to the 
L-1 B Policy Memo released last year, specialized knowledge is, "knowledge . .. that is distinct or 
uncommon in comparison to that generally found in the particular industry" (the Petitioner's 
emphasis). 
This partial quotation omits crucial language. The memorandum's complete definition of "special 
knowledge" is "knowledge of the petitioning employer's product, service, research, equipment, 
techniques, management, or other interests and its applications in internat,ional markets . that is 
demonstrably distinct or uncommon in comparison to that generally found in the particular industry 
or within the petitionin g employer" (emphasis added). USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, 
L-1 B Adjudication s Policy 7 (Aug. 17, 20 15), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 
Familiarity with one's employer 's proprietary technology does not inherently rise to the level of 
special knowledge. Most, if not all, companies in the Petitioner 's industry likely have their own 
proprietary technology, with employees who~e duties roughly match those of the Beneficiary. The 
Beneficiary's knowledge ofhis employer's products is not specialized simply because employees of 
rival companies are not familiar with those products. The Petitioner must establish that the 
knowledge required to work with its products requires this Beneficiary to have knowledge that is 
distinct or uncommon to the point that such knowledge could~ not be readily transferred to a similarly 
educated and experienced worker. Because the Petitioner has not sufficiently documented that the 
claimed specialized knowledge was acquired through substantial training, it has not met this burden. 
The Beneficiary's role, as described, appears to constitute working with client and internal technical 
staff to customize the Petitioner's products to fit the client's requirements . While the Petitioner does 
not have to show that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is ·narrowly held within the 
organization, in all cases, a Petitioner is required to compare the Beneficiary 's knowledge to that of 
others. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111 , L-IB Adjudication s Policy, supra, at 12. 
As the Petitioner has not meaningfully differentiated between the Beneficiary and other employees 
with similar knowledge of and , or sufficiently documented the amount of training or 
6 
.
Matter of N-T- Corp. 
experience required to work with and we must conclude that, while the Beneficiary 
is a skilled employee, these skills have not been shown to constitute specialized knowledge as 
defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D) and section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act. 
The record does not establish that the Beneficiary p'ossesses specialized knowledge or that he has 
been. employed abroad or would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge 
capacity as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D) . 
Because the Petitioner has not met the threshold requirement of showing that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge, we need not make a separate finding on the corollary issue of 
whether the Beneficiary's employment offsite at the customer's location would rely primarily on 
specialized knowledge of the Petitioner's products or processes. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. Therefore, the 
Petitioner also did not establish that the Beneficiary's past employment abroad and his intended 
employment in the United States require specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of N-T- Corp., ID# 356834 (AAO MAY 31, 20i 7)