dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 30, 2024 In Re: 29853823 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker (L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker) 
The Petitioner, an information technology enterprise, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as 
its "Sr. Technical Lead" under the L-lB nonirnrnigrant classification for intracompany transferees . 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L) . 
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. 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 nonirnrnigrant 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)(l5)(L) of the Act. 
The petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment 
qualify him or her to perfo1m the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
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 
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 a supporting statement, the Petitioner discussed a web-based application -I I- that was 
purchased by its organization in October 2021 as part of thel IThe Petitioner 
discussed I Ifunctionality, stating that it offers "a comprehensive hiring solution that enables 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
faster time to productivity" and enables automation of various activities that are part of the new 
employee onboarding process. The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary has been working with 
I lin his position abroad and therefore has "extensive experience" and the required specialized 
knowledge to carry out his assigned duties. The Petitioner referred to the Beneficiary as a subject 
matter expert, pointing to his more than 15 years of experience in "product functionality as well as 
technical skills." The Petitioner also highlighted the Beneficiary's role as technical lead, as well as 
his involvement in "setting up best practices," performing code and peer reviews, maintaining 
"complete [ o ]wnership of the [sic] all the [ d]evelopment [ o ]peration activities," and mentoring and 
managing team members. The Petitioner did not, however, explain how these attributes demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. 
The Petitioner also pointed out that the Beneficiary "is the only person who has required UI technical 
skills and process knowledge in both [ d]evelopment and testing," explaining that the Beneficiary 
acquired such knowledge and skills "by working on the product right from the inception of his team 
several years ago." Further, the Petitioner claimed that to attain the Beneficiary's level of knowledge 
and expertise "requires numerous years of training . . . within the I I proprietary software 
systems." However, this claim should be considered within the context of the Beneficiary's hiring 
date, which is listed as October 1, 2021; given that this petition was filed in January 2023, the 
Beneficiary had only been working for this organization - and withl I- for approximately one 
year and three months at the time of filing. As such, the Beneficiary did not have "numerous years of 
training" working with thel ltool. Thus, not only is it unclear when and how the claimed 
specialized knowledge was acquired, but it is also unclear that specialized knowledge was and would 
be required to work with and develop I I given that the Petitioner did not identify specific 
I I characteristics that would require specialized knowledge and given that the Beneficiary had 
been working with I I from the start of his employment, without prior training or experience 
with that tool. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner was notified of several evidentiary deficiencies, such 
as the lack of evidence regarding the content and length of the Beneficiary's training, if any, to support 
the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiaryls positiln "requires numerous years of training to 
successfully craft specific solutions within the proprietary software systems." The Petitioner 
was asked to identify the Beneficiary's knowledge as special or advanced and to explain how that 
knowledge sets him apart from other employees within the organization and how it qualifies as 
specialized knowledge. 
In response, the Petitioner reiterated much of the information that was provided in the original 
supporting statement, claiming that the Beneficiary has worked with I I products "in a 
specialized knowledge position for a substantial period of time" and focusing on the Beneficiary's 
"key role" in product enhancement as well as his direct involvement in delivering product features and 
fixes to customers. To this end, the Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's responsibilities and 
accomplishments, such as becoming proficient in writing automation scripts and building certain tools 
or acquiring experience in certain functions and technologies; it also stated that the Beneficiary is "an 
expert" in its proprietary software systems. However, the Petitioner did not state that the Beneficiary 
underwent training to gain the knowledge that is claimed to be specialized, nor did it describe a path 
for gaining the Beneficiary's level of knowledge. 
3 
Further, the Petitioner spoke only broadly about the Beneficiary's knowledge progression, mentioning 
the start of his career as a "QA engineer," moving on to gain a "deeper understanding and expertise" 
as a software developer and "strong technical member in the team"; however, the Petitioner did not 
adequately discuss how the Beneficiary's knowledge progressed from the time he commenced his 
employment with the foreign entity in October 2021 to the point of achieving the specialized 
knowledge level, as claimed. As stated earlier, the Petitioner did not clarify when or how the 
Beneficiary obtained the knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. And although the Petitioner 
referred to the Beneficiary as having "advanced knowledge," this reference was not followed by a 
corresponding discussion where the Petitioner identified the organization's processes and procedures 
with respect to which the Beneficiary is claimed to have advanced knowledge and an explanation of 
how the Beneficiary's knowledge is greatly developed or farther along in progress, complexity, and 
understanding compared to others within the organization. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-
0111, L-IB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 
In addition, although the Petitioner stated thatl Ihas features that are "extremely complicated 
and require a deep knowledge," it did not identify or descrile any such features or explain how they 
are complicated. The Petitioner also noted that working with 1for over 15 years is uncommon, 
noteworthy, and not generally known by others in the field; however, as noted earlier, the Beneficiary 
was hired by the foreign entity in October 2021 and had only been working with I I for 
approximately one year and three months when this petition was filed. Although the Petitioner's 
original supporting statement does contain a reference to the Beneficiary's 15+ years of experience, 
that reference was made with respect to his experience in "product functionality" and "technical skills" 
and thus it broadly spoke to the evolution of the Beneficiary's career in the IT field rather than his 
experience with I I The Petitioner's reference in the RFE response is not supported in the 
record and is inconsistent with the original claim. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988) (stating that inconsistencies in the record must be resolved with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies). 
And despite providing an expert advisory opm10n deeming the Beneficiary's knowledge to be 
specialized, the fact that the Petitioner did not establish precisely when the claimed specialized 
knowledge was gained precludes a favorable finding. As previously noted, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary held the claimed specialized knowledge position for at least one year 
at the time this petition was filed. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) (requiring 
petitioners to establish eligibility for the requested benefit at the time offiling the benefit request and 
continuing until the final adjudication). Here, the record shows that the Beneficiary held a technical 
lead position during the entirety of his one year and three months of employment with the foreign 
entity; however, the Petitioner did not establish precisely how or when during his period of 
employment with the foreign entity the Beneficiary gained the knowledge that it claims is specialized. 
We therefore cannot determine that the Beneficiary worked in a specialized knowledge capacity for at 
least one year at the time of filing. 
On appeal, the Petitioner farther discusses the proprietary suite of software products, focusing on the 
ltool which has been the focal point of the Beneficiary's position with the foreign entity. The 
Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary has been employed in a specialized knowledge capacity 
during the entirety of his employment with the foreign entity and reiterates the main contents of a 
previously submitted expert opinion as supporting evidence. The Petitioner also discusses some of 
4 
I 
,______.I key features, highlighting the proprietary nature of the entire of suite of products and the 
Beneficiary's "key role in analyzing, designing, and developing" product enhancements. The 
Petitioner also again references the expert advisory opinion, maintaining the claim that the 
Beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity involved specialized knowledge. We disagree and 
find that the record does not support the Petitioner's claim. 
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 could have gained specialized knowledge in the course of his employment with the foreign entity, 
where he had been employed for a total of one year and three months when this petition was filed. 
Further, despite relrng on the Beneficiary's previously listed job duties and key role in enhancing the 
functionality of the ltool, the Petitioner has provided no evidence or specifics about a path for 
gaining specialized knowledge within its 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. Likewise, while the Petitioner has broadly discussed some of the beneficial features of 
using the I I tool, it has not identified specific characteristics of the tool to explain why 
specialized knowledge is required to work on its design and development. 
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. 
5