dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15764573 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 26, 2021 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner , a provider of IT cloud solutions for revenue management , seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary temporarily as its "Sr. Member Technical Staff 2" under the L-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L) , 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(15)(L). 
The California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish , as 
required , 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. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we conclude that the Petitioner did not 
meet that burden. Therefore , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB nonimmigrant visa classification , 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. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 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). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is part of a multinational organization that "developed its own proprietary platform 
technologies, core application engines, and application infrastructure " to create revenue management 
IT solutions for its clients in the life science and technology indu stries . The Petitioner states that the 
tools it uses and the solutions it creates using those tools are unique to its organization and not 
generally found within the industry . The Petitioner points to the Beneficiary's education , which 
included "directly related coursework," and the "unique training experience" acquired during the 
Beneficiary's employment with the foreign organization resulted in his "extensive knowledge " of 
Petitioner's proprietary tools and solutions. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "leverages" his 
knowledge of its organization's proprietary tools and infrastructure as "one of the core members of a 
team" that builds revenue management applications for its "high tech vertical clients." It also describes 
the Beneficiary's knowledge as "beyond the working knowledge of the frameworks," stating that the 
Beneficiary has "advanced design skills" that were developed and have become "specialized" as a 
result of the Beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether the Beneficiary has been employed abroad and will be employed 
in the United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
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. 1 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if they have: (1) a "special" knowledge of the 
petitioning organization's product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" 
level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the petitioning organization. Section 
214(c)(2)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). A petitioner may establish eligibility by 
submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the statutory 
definition. 
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 
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 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
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 present matter, the Petitioner submitted a supporting cover letter discussing the Beneficiary's 
experience with the foreign entity and highlighting his knowledge of the organization's "specialized 
procedures" and "advanced understanding" of the organization's proprietary "platform, core 
application engine, and application infrastructure." However, the Petitioner did not describe its 
organization's "specialized procedures" and although it provided a list of its proprietary tools, it did 
not point to characteristics explaining why specialized knowledge is required to use them. Likewise, 
although the Petitioner also provided a list of the Beneficiary's assigned job duties, it did not 
distinguish them as uncommon among other similarly situated professionals within the IT industry or 
explain why specialized knowledge is required to perform such duties. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient 
evidence establishing that "special" or "advanced" knowledge was required to perform the 
Beneficiary's duties with the foreign entity and pointed out that the Petitioner did not specify the 
amount of time or the specific training that was required for the Beneficiary to attain the knowledge 
that is claimed to be specialized. The Director stated that the Petitioner can address these areas of 
concern by: identifying the tools or techniques that require specialized knowledge, explaining how 
the Beneficiary's knowledge is either "special" or "advanced," providing evidence of prior training 
the Beneficiary had undergone, and specifying the minimum time required to gain the knowledge that 
is claimed to be specialized. 
In response, the Petitioner explained that its organization employs IT professionals who build 
proprietary revenue management solutions that are "cutting edge" and can be rapidly deployed, 
thereby maximizing the client's efficiency and revenue. The Petitioner provided a list of solutions its 
IT staff created and identified the tools they used, stating that both the solutions and the tools are 
proprietary to the Petitioner's organization and not generally found within the industry. The Petitioner 
stated that "specific, specialized and internal trainings" are required of all of its "Senior Member of 
Technical Staff II" and claimed that the Beneficiary gained knowledge of the proprietary solutions 
and tools "through hands-on experience and training" that he received during his period of 
employment with the foreign entity. However, the Petitioner did not provide a training schedule, 
specify or describe the content of any "internal trainings," or offer evidence showing that the 
Beneficiary completed any such training as part of a path for gaining specialized knowledge. The 
Petitioner also did not indicate that there was a progression in the Beneficiary's knowledge from the 
time he commenced his employment with the foreign entity in October 2015 to the date the claimed 
specialized knowledge was attained. In light of these deficiencies, it is unclear when or how the 
3 
Beneficiary obtained the knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. Further, because the Petitioner 
did not provide an understanding of the process for acquiring specialized knowledge within its 
organization, it did not adequately support the claim that it is "not possible to quickly or easily training 
a new U.S. employee in the detailed knowledge of foreign office operations." 
The Petitioner also provided a job duty breakdown, claiming that the Beneficiary's assigned job duties 
required "special" knowledge of the organization's "proprietary technologies, products, techniques 
and services." However, aside from highlighting the Beneficiary's use of proprietary tools to create 
business solutions, the Petitioner did not provide practical descriptions of the tools' functionalities 
explaining why using the tools requires the Beneficiary to have "special" knowledge that is uncommon 
within the industry. 
Although the Petitioner also claimed that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced, it did not specify 
the processes and procedures to which that knowledge applies. Rather, it claimed that the Beneficiary 
has an "'advanced' level of knowledge of [the Petitioner's] technology and products." Further, the 
Petitioner also did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge of its organization's processes 
and procedures is uncommon within the relevant industry and greatly developed in comparison to the 
knowledge that is generally found within the employer. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, 
L-IB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 
The Petitioner also provided the following recognitions as evidence of the Beneficiary's "greatest 
achievements" during his employment with the foreign entity: 
1. A 2015 email listing the Beneficiary as one of 11 recipients being recognized for "successful 
delivery of the first phase of Non[-] Strategy Migration." The email recognized "the team" for 
their work on "one of the most complex and technically challenging projects"; 
2. A 2019 "Certificate of Excellence" and 2019 annual award both recognizing the Beneficiary 
for "Exemplary display of [the organization]'s values - 'Passion' and 'Creating customer 
delight while protecting organizational interests"'; 
3. "Certificate of Excellence" recognizing the Beneficiary for "Exemplary display of [the 
organization J's values - 'Team work' and 'Exemplary delivery capabilities'" for the 2015 and 
2016 third quarter; 
4. The foreign entity's recognition of the Beneficiary as its "Model for May 2015"; 
5. "Certificate of Excellence" recognizing the Beneficiary for "'Exceptional expertise displayed 
at work' and 'Exemplary display of [ the organization]' s values and Core Competencies" in the 
2014 fourth quarter; and 
6. An "Individual Excellence" award listing the Beneficiary as the recipient for the 2014 third 
quarter. 
Although the Petitioner claimed that the above recognitions were "directly related to the proprietary 
technologies," the recognitions did not specify any "proprietary technologies" nor did they contain 
information regarding the criteria a recipient was expected to meet. The latter point is particularly 
relevant given that several of the recognitions were for work performed as part of a "team." We also 
note that the certificate in No. 2 above was awarded in 2019, when the Beneficiary was already 
working in the United States and is claimed to have already acquired the specialized knowledge that 
is purportedly a prerequisite for the U.S. position. As such, the 2019 recognition does not explain how 
4 
or when the Beneficiary acquired knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. Moreover, given the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's employment as the foreign entity's "foll-time Member 
Technical Staff' 2 started in October 2015, we question the validity of the recognitions described in 
Nos. 1 and 3-6 above, which indicate that the Beneficiary received recognition for work performed 
prior to the commencement of the Beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity. The Petitioner 
must resolve these discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erroneously likened the Beneficiary's job duties to 
those in "related occupation [sic] working in the system software development filed," asserting that 
this conclusion is inconsistent with precedent caselaw in which "the Service did not find that the 
occupations inherently qualified the beneficiaries and looked for elements beyond general job tasks 
and duties." Contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, the Director in this instance did not narrowly limit 
the analysis to the Beneficiary's occupation and "general job tasks and duties." Rather, in concluding 
that the Beneficiary does not possess the requisite specialized knowledge, the Director factored in the 
Beneficiary's performance awards and years of experience with the foreign entity, finding that the 
Petitioner did not adequately distinguish the Beneficiary's knowledge from that of others or provide 
sufficient information demonstrating that receiving a performance award was an indicator that the 
Beneficiary possessed specialized knowledge. 
The Petitioner also argues that the Director applied a higher standard of proof in reviewing the 
evidence, pointing to the Beneficiary's use of "proprietary platform technologies" and samples of the 
Beneficiary's work as evidence that he acquired specialized knowledge. We disagree. 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 use those tools necessarily rises to the level of being 
specialized. As previously discussed, in order to establish that the Beneficiary's knowledge is either 
special or advanced knowledge, the Petitioner 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 Petitioner must also support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Although the Petitioner 
asserts that the Beneficiary meets the criteria for possessing special and advanced knowledge, it does 
not adequately support these assertions; instead, it makes general references to "specific, specialized 
and internal trainings," yet provides no evidence that the Beneficiary has undergone such training or 
specifics about a path for gaining specialized knowledge within the organization. Thus, the Petitioner 
has not answered the critical question of how and when the Beneficiary gained the knowledge that is 
claimed to be specialized. 
We also disagree with the Petitioner's reliance on the Beneficiary's receipt of performance awards as 
evidence that he possesses specialized knowledge. As from the lack of evidence resolving the 
discrepancy regarding the date those recognitions were issued, the record also lacks sufficient 
information about the specific criteria for the awards the Beneficiary is claimed to have received. 
Without this relevant information we cannot conclude that the receipt of an award signifies that the 
award recipient possesses specialized knowledge. Moreover, as noted earlier, the probative value of 
2 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed on a part-time basis or that he assumed a position other 
than the foreign entity's "Member Technical Staff' prior to October 2015. 
5 
the award certificates the Petitioner provided is significantly undermined by the discrepancy between 
the dates the awards were given and the commencement of the Beneficiary 's employment with the 
foreign entity. 
Further, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is beneficial to the 
Petitioner's competitiveness in the marketplace, can only be gained through experience with its 
organization, and cannot be easily taught or transferred . Although these characteristics are consistent 
with those cited in a USCIS Policy Memorandum, such characteristics alone are not probative of the 
Beneficiary's specialized knowledge. As noted in the memorandum , the "characteristics" listed by 
the Petitioner are only "factors that USCIS may consider when determining whether a beneficiary's 
knowledge is specialized." PM-602-0111 , L-JB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015). The 
memorandum emphasizes that "ultimately, it is the weight and type of evidence that establishes 
whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge ." Id. at 13. 
Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is both "special" and 
"advanced" because it is with respect to proprietary tools and solutions of the employing organization 
and not widely held throughout the industry, it does not establish that specialized knowledge is 
required to work with these proprietary tools or to provide proprietary solutions using these tools. And 
despite claiming that the Beneficiary has the educational foundation and internal training to work with 
its proprietary tools, the record lacks specific information about the training, evidence showing that 
the Beneficiary actually underwent any training, or other evidence outlining an actual path for gaining 
specialized knowledge within its organization with respect to the proprietary tools the Beneficiary has 
used 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 will be dismissed. 
6