dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF IT-S- USA, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 13, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an IT servicer provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "Sr. MES 
Software Developer" under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(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 California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director failed to properly consider the evidence, which 
shows that the Beneficiary was one of "over thousands" who was chosen to share his 
"advanced/specialized knowledge" with its U.S. employees. Although the Petitioner indicated that a 
supplemental brief would be submitted within 30 days of filing the appeal, the record does not show 
that a brief was actually submitted. Therefore, we will base our decision on the Petitioner's short 
appeal statement (at Part 7 No. 3.d of the Form I-290B) and all previously submitted evidence. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner has not established 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. Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 
Matter of IT-S- USA, Inc. 
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 creates software to support automation in manufacturing through 
the use of a proprietary manufacturing execution system ("MES"). The Petitioner referred to its 
"sophisticated proprietary tools" stating that developing these tools took "years of research" and 
"ground experience." Although the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary is "one of few employees 
within our group of over 9,000 employees" who acquired knowledge in the use of its proprietary tools, 
it did not describe the tools' functionality or distinguish them from the software tools used by other IT 
companies who support automation in manufacturing. The Petitioner also discussed the Beneficiary's 
education and work experience referring to his master's degree in general mathematics in 2005 and 
his work in the manufacturing IT industry starting with his work in 2006 as an external consultant and 
MES software developer fo~ l a customer of the foreign entity. The Petitioner explained 
that the Beneficiary's foreign employment involved "analysis and development of MES solutions for 
large manufacturers," indicating that the Beneficiary acquired specialized knowledge inl I 
services and the I lproduction suite of software. 
The Petitioner also claimed that the Beneficiary has in-depth knowledge of the foreign employer's 
operating conditions and a "deep involvement with the design of MES software," which is not 
generally found within the U.S. organization. The Petitioner anticipates that the Beneficiary's 
"specialized knowledge of [ engineering] MES solutions lifecycle" will critically impact the U.S. 
operations and will allow the Beneficiary to train other engineers in the use of the foreign entity's 
proprietary tools to design, test, and implement MES solutions. The Petitioner has proffered an annual 
salary of $85,000 to the Beneficiary. 
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. 
In the denial decision, the Director found that the submitted evidence did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's proficiency in the use of an unaffiliated entity's proprietary software tools equates to 
specialized knowledge. The Director also questioned how the approximately six weeks of training 
that the Beneficiary received for his foreign position equates to specialized knowledge. Lastly, the 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not adequately describe the process for gaining the 
knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. 
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 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
Matter of IT-S- USA, Inc. 
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. 
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 and when the 
individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner provided a supporting cover letter claiming that the Ben,ficiarv is 
an experienced technical leader "in the design of~----------~ and I 
environments," which involved implementing MES solutions for manufacturers of food and beverages 
as well as agricultural chemicals. Although the Petitioner referred to the Beneficiary's "extensive 
experience" in coordinating and monitoring projects at all phases and his ability to design "specialized 
manufacturing environments" and work with a "wide variety of software technologies and computer 
hardware," it did not distinguish the Beneficiary's experience and knowledge from that of other IT 
professionals who similarly work with clients in the automation manufacturing industry, nor did it 
3 
Matter of IT-S- USA, Inc. 
point to specific characteristics that demonstrate the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge. The 
Petitioner also listed the Beneficiary's job duties, but did not explain why specialized knowledge is 
required to perform them. The Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary's practical knowledge of 
programming and networks noting that his "mathematical background" has served as a "natural 
professional outlet." 
The Petitioner also provided a copy of the Beneficiary's resume, which lists his professional skills and 
work experience. The resume indicates that the Beneficiary has held the position of MES software 
developer with the foreign entity from 2005 through the present; it also indicates that from 2005-2011 
the Beneficiary acted as an IT developer in a consulting capacity forl I where he "followed 
the internal training courses" of the entity for which he was consulting. 
With regard to the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment, the Petitioner again pointed to his 
"specialized knowledge" of the I I software, which would ultimately benefit the U.S. 
subsidiary by providing its clients with automation solutions and frameworks. Although the Petitioner 
claimed that the Beneficiary has had "proprietary and on-the-job training" and is experienced in "a 
wide variety of proprietary software technologies" and internally developed computer hardware, it did 
not describe the training process or point to specific characteristics of the software or hardware to 
establish that the Beneficiary's experience with either resulted in his acquiring specialized knowledge. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted that the Petitioner did not provide evidence 
establishing that the Beneficiary performed duties that required specialized knowledge. The Director 
also noted that the Petitioner did not establish how and when the Beneficiary gained his claimed 
specialized knowledge, or compare and contrast the Beneficiary's duties and knowledge from those 
of others employed in the organization or within the industry. Accordingly, the Director instructed 
the Petitioner to identify the products or services that the Beneficiary worked with that required 
specialized knowledge, explain how such knowledge or expertise is either "special" or "advanced," 
state the minimum time required to obtain that knowledge, and compare the knowledge required to 
perform the duties of the Beneficiary's foreign position with that of similarly employed individuals 
within the employer or within the industry. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a statement from the foreign entity claiming that the Beneficiary 
has "advanced and specialized knowledge" of the company's "sophisticated proprietary tools" and 
that he acquired such knowledge through "extensive training" at the company's own IT and 
management school, which is said to offer "200 certified lecturers and 363 courses" through its offices 
in Europe, the United States, and South America. The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
was one of few employees who was offered this training, nor did it establish that such training was a 
necessary step in the acquisition of specialized knowledge. Thus, despite claiming that the Beneficiary 
is "the only one" among thousands of employees who "possess [sic] advance [sic] and specialized 
knowledge and skills," it did not specifically define the nature of the specialized knowledge or describe 
a path for acquiring such knowledge. Further, the Petitioner did not describe the foreign entity's 
"sophisticated development tools"; instead, it discussed the Beneficiary's position as an "external 
consultant" atl I as well as his knowledge of thel I "sophisticated developer tools." 
The Petitioner did not, however, describe those tools, point to distinct features that make the tools 
4 
Matter of IT-S- USA, Inc. 
sophisticated in comparison to other tools, or establish that other employees within the same industry 
do not have similar knowledge of comparable products and tools. 
The Petitioner reiterated the Beneficiary's experience with I and his role as an "external 
consultant" for that entity, claiming that being selected for this role was in itself evidence of the 
Beneficiary's "unique abilities" in automation software for manufacturing. The Petitioner did not, 
however, specify how the Beneficiary's abilities were unique, state precisely how and when he 
acquired those abilities, or establish that such abilities applied to the foreign employer's products or 
tools. In fact, the Petitioner focused on training that the Beneficiary received after being assigned the 
external consultant role at c=:J thereby indicating that the Beneficiary's claimed specialized 
knowledge was acquired at L__J and was with respect tol I tools and products, as opposed 
to the tools and products of the employing entity. Although the Petitioner claimed that the 
Beneficiary's position atl lled him to acquire skills that were "unique and fundamental" to the 
foreign entity's development of custom products for its manufacturing clients, it did not elaborate on 
this claim or explain how the Beneficiary's experience atl I resulted in specialized knowledge 
of the foreign employer's software tools or products. Despite claiming that specialized knowledge is 
required to develop automation software for manufacturing, the Petitioner did not specify or describe 
the elements of the Beneficiary's knowledge that are claimed to be specialized, nor did it distinguish 
his knowledge from that of others within the employing entity or within the industry. 
Further, the Petitioner did not provide a detailed explanation to support the claim that the Beneficiary's 
"advance[ d] knowledge and specialization in the analysis and development of MES solutions for large 
manufacturers" equates to specialized knowledge. Although the Petitioner provided a list of trainings 
and certifications the Beneficiary acquired, the record indicates that after getting his master's degree 
in mathematics in 2005, he underwent approximately six weeks of training within a three-year period, 
which included two weeks of basic training inl I in 2006 and three 
days of an introductory Microsoft course in 2008. The Petitioner did not explain how the Beneficiary's 
prior training, which included basic and introductory courses, contributed to the acquisition of 
specialized knowledge. Lastly, although the Petitioner provided a list of the Beneficiary's typical job 
duties, it did not indicate that his duties progressed in levels of difficulty that corresponded with any 
increased levels of knowledge, nor did it point to specific job duties that required specialized 
knowledge to execute. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasized the size of its organization, noting that the Beneficiary was the 
only employee out of thousands who was selected to "share his advanced/specialized knowledge" with 
employees at the U.S. entity. The Petitioner contends that the Director capriciously denied the petition 
by not taking into account these specific circumstances. 
We find that the Petitioner's broadly stated objection is not sufficient to overcome the above-noted 
deficiencies, which point to the lack of a detailed description of the tools and products in which the 
Beneficiary arguably acquired specialized knowledge, the lack of evidence showing how the 
Beneficiary acquired the knowledge that is claimed to be specialized, and the lack of a nexus between 
the work the Beneficiary performed as an external consultant for I I and the specialized 
knowledge he is claimed to have acquired with regard to the tools and products of the foreign entity 
where he was employed. 
5 
Matter of IT-S- USA, Inc. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of IT-S- USA, Inc., ID# 3592091 (AAO June 13, 2019) 
6