dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 11, 2024 In Re: 30239366 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker) 
The Petitioner is an information technology enterprise that seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
temporarily as its Senior Software Engineer under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lB 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and was employed abroad and would 
be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. The matter is now before us 
on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB 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. 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). 
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 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)(1)(ii)(D). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an IT consulting company that provides product development and software 
engineering solutions for client companies in various industries. Its clients then use those solutions to 
provide data and content to their customers. The Petitioner provided evidence that its Russian affiliate 
has employed the Beneficiary as a Senior Software Engineer since October 2013, and it now seeks to 
transfer him to its office in California to serve in the same capacity. 
The primary issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge, that he has been employed abroad in position involving specialized 
knowledge, 1 and that he will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
As a threshold issue, we must determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. If the evidence is insufficient to establish that he possesses 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's past and intended future 
employment involve specialized knowledge - knowledge that is either "special" or "advanced." 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneficiary's 
knowledge is "special" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's 
knowledge against that of others. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge, 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 or advanced, and that the beneficiary's position 
requires such knowledge. 
Special knowledge concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and their 
application in international markets. To establish that a beneficiary has special knowledge, the 
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. 
Because "advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, 
the petitioning entity may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge of or 
1 The Petitioner did not claim, in the alternative, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). 
2 
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. 
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 such knowledge is 
typically gained within the organization and explain how and when the individual beneficiary gained 
such knowledge. 
In the Petitioner's supporting letters, the Beneficiary is claimed to have gained specialized knowledge 
during his employment abroad "through a combination of sources." The Petitioner further stated that 
the Beneficiary gained knowledge that is both special and advanced and pertains, in part, to the 
organization's "proprietary systems and processes" as well as its products and their application in 
international markets. The Petitioner did not, however, specifically identify any "proprietary systems 
and processes" in which the Beneficiary is claimed to have specialized knowledge. Likewise, the 
Petitioner did not identify any of its organization's processes and procedures, despite claiming that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced. See section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(D). Instead, the Petitioner broadly referred to the Beneficiary's "advanced knowledge 
of software and tools and their specific use in the development of [the organization]'s software, 
modules, products, etc." 
The Petitioner listed various tools and platforms its organization uses to develop software solutions, 
highlighting that the solutions are proprietary and are customized for its clients. The Petitioner pointed 
out that the Beneficiary participated in the development and integration of various tools and worked 
on a project from March 2015 until March 2021 in the course of which he "applied his specialized 
knowledge in software engineering in aspects of system implementation, including the analysis, 
design, building, implementing, testing and support." The Petitioner did not explain how the 
Beneficiary's claimed "specialized knowledge in software engineering" demonstrates that he has 
special knowledge with respect to the organization's product or advanced knowledge with respect to 
the organization's processes and procedures. See id. And while the Petitioner claimed that the 
Beneficiary used internally generated "approaches and techniques" and was responsible for "handling 
all development processes" while working on the assigned project, it did not describe the approaches 
and techniques or the processes to explain why specialized knowledge was required to work on the 
assigned project. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director determined that the record lacks evidence showing that 
the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge with respect to the Petitioner's product, if claiming that the 
knowledge is special, or with respect to the Petitioner's processes and procedures, if claiming that the 
knowledge is advanced. The Director requested further evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary's 
duties abroad involved specialized knowledge, noting that skills required to perform the routine job 
duties of a Senior Software Engineer do not necessarily require specialized knowledge. The Director 
3 
also asked the Petitioner to specify the minimum time required to gain the Beneficiary's claimed 
knowledge and to provide the Beneficiary's training record, if any, listing course descriptions and 
dates, the length of time spent daily on each course, and the number of employees who completed the 
same trammg. The Director explained that such information is relevant for the purpose of 
distinguishing the Beneficiary's training from that of other employees in the same position and 
gauging whether his knowledge is commonly held within the organization or industry. 
In response, the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown, indicating that the 
Beneficiary used his "proficiency" in various software tools and an Oracle-based platform and applied 
his "expertise in Java programming language" to develop software solutions and execute his 
"specialized knowledge duties." The Petitioner highlighted the Beneficiary's direct involvement in 
delivering new product features as well as his "[i]n-depth understanding of software development 
principles and practices," his "[ d]eep knowledge of the software development system," his 
"familiarity" with code review processes and software development methodologies, and his 
"[u]nderstanding of common integration challenges" and "[k]knowledge of integration techniques." 
In sum, the Petitioner focused more broadly on the Beneficiary's IT knowledge and experience, 
reiterating prior references to the Beneficiary's "specialized knowledge in software engineering" and 
stressing the Beneficiary's ability to enhance functions and technologies by using various 
customizable tools. However, the Petitioner did not explain how the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
special with respect to a company product or how it is advanced with respect to company-specific 
processes and procedures. And although the Petitioner offered "additional descriptions of the 
proprietary resources" it claims the Beneficiary used "in applying his specialized knowledge," it did 
not convey a meaningful understanding of these resources to explain why using them requires 
specialized knowledge. 
The Petitioner also provided a list of internal trainings that the Beneficiary completed during his 
employment abroad. However, it is unclear what role, if any, the trainings had in imparting specialized 
knowledge of the company's product or its processes and procedures, particularly given that some of 
the trainings pertained to tools that are widely available in the IT industry, such as Oracle or Java. 
Furthermore, we note that some of the course descriptions, including the two courses the Beneficiary 
took prior to commencing work on his project in 2015, indicate that they conveyed "general concepts," 
as in the one-day training in July 2014, or that they were introductory in nature, as in the two-day 
course the Beneficiary took in November and December 2014. Likewise, the course description 
indicates that although the Beneficiary took other courses while he worked on the foreign project, 
many were one day in duration and contain descriptions that do not indicate that the content they 
conveyed can be deemed as specialized knowledge. 
Also, the Petitioner has not established that it is unusual or uncommon for a senior software engineer 
to obtain the type of training the Beneficiary received, nor is there evidence that the information 
conveyed in the training courses, while likely valuable and relevant to the services the company 
provides, constitutes "specialized knowledge" as defined in the statute and regulations. Ultimately, 
the record indicates that the software development skills that the Beneficiary possesses are relevant to 
the Petitioner's business and enable him to customize solutions based on platforms that are available 
in the industry. However, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's possession of this 
4 
skillset constitutes "special knowledge" among its own software engmeers, or among software 
engineers working in the same field. 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneficiary's 
knowledge is "special" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's 
knowledge against that of others. Further, it is the petitioner's burden to establish a favorable 
comparison. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-JB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), 
https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/policy-memoranda. As discussed earlier, the record does not 
establish how the duties performed by the Beneficiary require him to possess knowledge that is 
uncommon or distinct compared to similarly experienced senior software engineers who work for 
consulting companies. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary had the most years of experience with the 
organization as compared to members of his team and claims that the Beneficiary gained "specialized 
and advanced knowledge of [the company]'s proprietary tools and resources" because of his 
"extensive experience." However, the Petitioner has not discussed a path for gaining specialized 
knowledge within its organization nor stated when the Beneficiary is considered to have ultimately 
attained the level of knowledge that it deems to be specialized. As such, it is unclear that the 
Beneficiary's tenure with the foreign employer sets him apart from his peers in terms of possessing 
specialized knowledge. And although the Petitioner highlights an "expanded organizational chart" 
which it claims depicts the Beneficiary's team in the United States and abroad, it does not clarify the 
composition of the Beneficiary's team abroad or provide information about the team members and the 
knowledge they possessed. 
The Petitioner also does not explain how the referenced document serves as evidence that the 
Beneficiary's position requires software development knowledge or skills that are uncommon among 
similarly trained and experienced software engineering professionals. For instance, the document lists 
each employee by name and position title and includes various IT terminology and abbreviations next 
to each employee profile. The following list appears adjacent to the Beneficiary's profile: "atg 
dynamo messaging systems, e-commerce, atg nucleus, atg bcx, java." The Petitioner did not explain 
the significance of the listed items to a determination of whether the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge, nor did the Petitioner clarify how or if these items relate to the Beneficiary's claimed 
knowledge of the Petitioner's "proprietary tools and resources." Without clarification of these 
ambiguities, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. 
Further, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge was "not 
acquired though a structured program over a predetermined period of time" but rather claims that his 
knowledge was obtained "through a variety of sources over the course of years." However, the 
Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that the Beneficiary's education, experience with the foreign 
employer, and internal training courses resulted in his acquiring special knowledge that is truly distinct 
or uncommon compared to knowledge generally possessed among similarly trained software engineers 
working in the Petitioner's industry. We note that the Petitioner did not outline a progression of the 
Beneficiary's knowledge during his employment abroad, thus making it unclear how his experience 
with the company and the trainings he underwent in the course of his employment resulted in the 
acquisition of specialized knowledge. For instance, the agenda for the training that took place in April 
2015 states that it is an "[i]ntroduction to ATG" and involved working with the Oracle platform. It is 
5 
unclear how this course pertained specifically to the employer's product or service or how it 
contributed to gaining specialized knowledge given that introductory nature of the course content. 
Likewise, the agenda for a course offered in November 2015 states that it was an "[i]ntroduction to 
Spring Framework," and the focus of a course in December 2016 was a new programming language 
that was intended as a Java alternative. While we do not doubt that these courses conveyed valuable 
information that enabled the Beneficiary to better address the needs of the project he was working on, 
it is unclear how they contributed to the Beneficiary's acquisition of specialized. Thus, the Petitioner's 
claims that the Beneficiary possesses considerable proprietary or company-specific knowledge that 
can only be gained through extensive training or experience are not supported by sufficient evidence 
to meets its burden of proof 
Although the Beneficiary's use of proprietary tools is relevant to this discussion, this factor in and of 
itself does not establish that the knowledge acquired to develop and enhance those tools necessarily 
rises to the level of being specialized. As previously discussed, to establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed in a specialized knowledge capacity, the Petitioner must establish when and how the 
Beneficiary gained the knowledge that it claims is specialized. The Petitioner must also support its 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
376 (AAO 2010). Although the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary meets the criteria for possessing 
specialized knowledge, it does not adequately address these critical points, leaving us to question how 
he gained specialized knowledge in the course of his employment with the foreign entity. 
Accordingly, in light of the evidentiary deficiencies described herein, the Petitioner has not established 
that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
and would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6