dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8846343 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 7, 2020 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner is technology services provider that seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as an 
"SAP Professional Services Consultant - Senior" under the L-lB 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish, as 
required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he 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 find 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 an IT company that provides its clients with metadata analytics about application 
usage and offers "complete application lifecycle support" in implementing and upgrading software 
and "ongoing management and functional support ." It highlights the Beneficiary's "in-depth 
knowledge" about the design, development, and delivery of the organization's "proprietary products 
and solutions" and states that the Beneficiary is "intricately familiar" with the company 's "internal 
business methodologies, processes, and procedures" that were "internally developed" over "many 
years." The Petitioner states that during his employment with the foreign entity the Beneficiary relied 
on his "unique abilities" to make "significate contributions" to the organization. It focused on the 
Beneficiary's history of employment with the foreign entity, which included working on more than 10 
projects and experience in the organization's technologies and its "global clientele." The Petitioner 
asserts that the Beneficiary's experience makes him "an ideal candidate" to lead user training in the 
migration of data from the legacy system to the configured "SAP [Enterprise Resource Planning] ERP 
system." The Petitioner believes that the Beneficiary would positively impact the U.S. operations by 
using his "deep subject matter expertise" of the organization's "SAP ERP" 1 systems and his "advanced 
knowledge" of the company's sales and distribution and its management of warehouse and materials 
to configure those systems. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he 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. 2 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge ifhe 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. 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 its 
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. 
1 The Petitioner stated that "SAP" stands for systems, applications, and products and "ERP" stands for Enterprise Resource 
Planning. 
2 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
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 
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 initially submitted a supporting cover letter stating that the 
Beneficiary's current job duties include leading and conducting a "business process blueprint," 
configuring the SAP ERP system based on that blue print, and consulting clients, leading user training, 
and providing user support on the implementation of the configured SAP ERP system. Although the 
Petitioner claimed that specialized knowledge is required to perform these duties, it did not provide 
an explanation to support this claim and despite claiming that the Beneficiary's position entails an "in­
depth" understanding of the employer's proprietary methods, process, and procedures, the Petitioner 
did not describe the proprietary methods, processes, and procedures its organization uses or explain 
why specialized knowledge is required to implement them. Likewise, the Petitioner stated that it 
employs "specialized methodologies, standards and techniques" that were "internally developed ... 
over the course of many years" and are "unique" to its organization, but it did not describe the 
methodologies and techniques, identify their functionalities, or explain what makes them unique as 
compared to methodologies and techniques used by other IT companies. Further, although the 
Petitioner stated that development of its "worldwide operations" rests "only" on its ability to use 
employees such as the Beneficiary, who are claimed to possess specialized knowledge, it did not 
elaborate on the Beneficiary's specific contribution(s) to its operations on an international scale, nor 
did it establish that specialized knowledge was required to make the contribution(s). 
In addition, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of the organization's 
means of managing warehouse and material and monitoring sales and distribution. However, the 
Petitioner did not distinguish its organization's practices from those commonly used by other IT 
companies who offer similar services, nor did it describe the Beneficiary's knowledge to explain how 
it is more developed as compared to others within the organization, particularly among the multiple 
"principal" and "senior" consultants who, like the Beneficiary, are also employed within the SAP 
professional services team. Although the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's resume showing that 
he was promoted from the position of "senior" consultant to his current position as professional 
services "lead," it did not elaborate on the distinctions between the two positions and therefore it did 
not show that the current position involves a higher degree of knowledge that rises to the level of being 
special or advanced. Furthermore, i±: as the Petitioner indicates, the Beneficiary's current position 
3 
requires a higher degree of knowledge than his former position as "senior" consultant, it is unclear 
how the proposed position as "senior" consultant would satisfy the specialized knowledge criteria if it 
is comparable to the position the Beneficiary held prior to being promoted to lead consultant. The 
Petitioner must resolve this ambiguity by submitting independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from the managing director who was the Beneficiary's direct 
superior at his former position with the foreign entity. However, the letter lacks meaningful content 
that adequately elaborates on the Beneficiary's "deep SAP system expertise" and "very strong subject 
domain expertise" in sales and distribution and warehouse and material management. As such, it is 
unclear that the Beneficiary's "expertise" in these areas rises to the level of specialized knowledge. In 
addition, aside from broadly stating that the Beneficiary gained his claimed specialized knowledge 
from "on-the-job experience," the Petitioner did not describe a progression of knowledge to clarify 
precisely how and when the Beneficiary attained the specialized level of knowledge he is now claimed 
to have. In addition, although the Petitioner provided a certificate of appreciation for completing an 
SAP consultant course in 2008 and a certificate of completion showing that the Beneficiary received 
a project management professional certification from a four-day course he completed in 2014, it did 
not establish that either course contributed to or resulted in the Beneficiary attaining specialized 
knowledge. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director found that the Petitioner did not (1) show how and when 
the Beneficiary gained knowledge that is claimed to be specialized, (2) establish that the duties 
performed by the Beneficiary required specialized knowledge, (3) demonstrate that the Beneficiary's 
experience resulted in specialized knowledge, or (4) distinguish the Beneficiary's knowledge from 
that of others who are similarly employed within the employer or within the industry. The Director 
instructed the Petitioner to provide additional evidence addressing these deficiencies. 
In response, the Petitioner reiterated previously made claims, stating that the Beneficiary has 
knowledge that is distinct and uncommon within the industry and referring to the Beneficiary as a 
"leading expert[]" in SAP practice technologies regarding sales and distribution, warehouse and 
materials management, and quality assurance. As stated earlier, however, the Petitioner did not 
elaborate on precisely how the Beneficiary's knowledge is distinct and uncommon, nor did it identify 
the "significant contributions" it claims the Beneficiary made to the company's SAP ERP systems. 
The Petitioner also cited to USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-IB Adjudications Policy 
(Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda, in support of its claim that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is both "special" and "advanced." However, aside from making this general 
claim, the Petitioner did not address the elements of "special" or "advanced" or explain how the 
Beneficiary's knowledge meets the criteria of either of these terms. Further, despite making broad 
references to the organization's proprietary "Speed to Value" methodology, the Petitioner did not 
specifically describe the features of this methodology to explain why using it requires specialized 
knowledge. Likewise, the Petitioner made general references to its organization's processes and 
procedures, but it did not describe those processes and procedures to support the claim that using them 
requires advanced knowledge. The Petitioner also claimed that the Beneficiary "developed new 
functionality" and provided sales and customer support, but it did not describe the "new functionality" 
4 
that the Beneficiary is claimed to have developed or explain why specialized knowledge was required 
to provide customer and sales support. 
Further, the Petitioner offered no explanation to support the claim that the Beneficiary is one of five 
subject matter experts in SAP business practices, nor did it outline the characteristics that merit such 
distinction. Although the Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary's "overlapping skill sets related to 
SAP implementation and production support" as an indicator that the knowledge he possesses is 
specialized, it did not offer sufficient evidence to support this assertion. In addition, the Petitioner 
referred to the Beneficiary as one of the organization's "most knowledgeable and highly trained 
employees," claiming that in his 12 years of employment abroad, the Beneficiary received 
"comprehensive and specific management trainings." However, it did not describe or provide the 
dates of such training, nor did it otherwise outline a path for gaining the specialized knowledge that 
the Beneficiary is claimed to possess. 
Further, despite claiming that the Beneficiary participated in developing the SAP ERP systems "from 
initial conceptions," the Petitioner did not identify any of the Beneficiary's claimed contributions or 
explain why specialized knowledge was required to develop the SAP ERP systems. And despite 
providing a more robust job duty breakdown, claiming that "specialty" or "advance" knowledge is 
required to perform each duty, the Petitioner did not support these claims with clarification about the 
complexities of the job duties to explain why specialized knowledge is required for their execution. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided an informational packet about the "SAP Hana solution," an internal 
planning and procedural guide for project delivery, and a list of the Beneficiary's past projects. 
However, the Petitioner did not identify the Beneficiary's role in developing the solution or project 
delivery guide or demonstrate a need for specialized knowledge in such development, nor did the 
Petitioner clarify how a list of the Beneficiary's past projects establishes that specialized knowledge 
is required to engage in and complete those projects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not offer greater insight about the Beneficiary's knowledge and 
generally reiterates prior claims about the Beneficiary's "distinct and uncommon knowledge" of his 
employer's proprietary systems, methodologies, and SAP implementation and customer services 
processes, asserting that the systems and methodologies are "advanced" and that the processes for 
implementing solutions are "highly complex." The Petitioner does not describe the systems or 
processes to establish a basis for making these broad claims, nor does it explain why specialized 
knowledge is required to perform the Beneficiary's assigned job duties. As such, the Petitioner has 
not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is either 
special or advanced. While the Beneficiary may have knowledge that could only be gained through 
prior experience with the petitioning organization, this characteristic alone is not probative of his 
specialized knowledge. As noted in the memorandum, this characteristic is only one of various 
"factors that USCIS 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 specialized knowledge." Id. at 13. Here, the 
Petitioner makes broad assertions about the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge, but it does 
5 
not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that rises to the 
specialized level. 
In light of the evidentiary deficiencies described above, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he was employed abroad and would be employed 
in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal will be dismissed. 
6