dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

Idd64 data deleted to 
pent clearly unwanantecl 
of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 09 00 1 5 1029 
 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: JAN 2 1 2010 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
u Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 09 001 51029 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1B intracompany 
transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
("the Act"), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is engaged in the design and development of IT business 
solutions. It claims to be a subsidiary of - located in New Delhi, India. The petitioner 
seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of Technical Consultant for a period of three years and indicates 
that the beneficiary will be assigned primarily to the worksite of an unaffiliated employer,- 
- 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been and would be employed in a capacity requiring 
specialized knowledge. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is a "key employee" with 
specialized knowledge of the petitioner's proprietary tools and proprietary Telecommunications Expense 
Management (TEM) Java framework. Counsel submits a detailed brief and additional evidence in support of the 
appeal. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must demonstrate that the 
beneficiary, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has 
been employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized 
knowledge, for one continuous year by a qualifying organization. The petitioner must also demonstrate that the 
beneficiary seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) further states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
EAC 09 001 51029 
Page 3 
education, training, and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
Under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, an alien is eligible for classification as a nonimmigrant if the alien, 
among other things, will be rendering services to the petitioning employer "in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge." Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1184(c)(2)(B), 
provides the statutory definition of specialized knowledge: 
For purposes of section 10l(a)( 15)(L), an alien is considered to be serving in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has a special knowledge 
of the company product and its application in international markets or has an advanced level of 
knowledge of processes and procedures of the company. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge as: 
[Slpecial 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. 
The primary issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and that he has been and will be employed in a capacity requiring specialized 
knowledge. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker on October 1, 2008. 
 In a letter 
dated September 17, 2008, the petitioner provided the following background information regarding the 
petitioner's client and the project on which the beneficiary has been and would be working: 
Control Point Solutions (CPS) is the leading provider of Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) 
for Telecommunications Expense Management (TEM). . . . 
[The petitioner] is CPS's key partner for developing and maintaining TEM applications. [The 
petitioner] is involved in providing the following services to CPS: [TEM] Applications 
Development, Business Process Support, Support existing Map based TEM applications and 
IT Infrastructure support. TEM Applications include ED1 (Electronic Data Interchange) and 
Non-ED1 development. For over two years, [the petitioner] has been involved in enhancing 
and porting TEM Applications to new technologies including: Requirements gathering and 
analysis, Research into design alternatives, Preparing Component design specifications, 
Writing technical specifications and Coding of Maps, Parser, TEM Framework, etc., Unit and 
system Testing, Regression and white box testing, Preparing Technical documentation - 
Mapping, Design, etc., Deployment and Technical Support for the developed TEM 
components, etc. 
EAC 09 00 1 5 1029 
Page 4 
The petitioner stated that it requires the transfer of an employee "who has worked on and has in-depth and 
advanced knowledge of TEM ED1 and non ED1 applications, software tools, utilities and frameworks for 
TEMS applications including IRIS Java Framework for adapters and '997' Response Generator." The 
petitioner indicated that the beneficiary has worked for its Indian parent company since August 1, 2005, and 
since April 2007, has been working as a "key resource" on the TEM Application Development team. The 
petitioner described the beneficiary's responsibilities as follows: 
Provided support for existing Map based TEM applications and its critical 
components like Bill Tamer - BT Agents, all Core File Processing Engine 
components, 8 1 1 ED1 File Parses, etc; 
Conducted System & Integration Testing for CPS TEM applications using [the 
petitioner's] configuration management control tools; 
Provided detailed training to [the petitioner's] team regarding technical details for 
TEM domain, IRIS Java Framework (built by [the petitioner]) and business rules. 
Conducted detailed requirements analysis and translated into a requirements 
specifications and technical specifications documents. 
Developed Proof of Concept for ED1 maps to evaluate the technical feasibility 
Developed the Proof of Concept for TEM applications Expansion Pack and adapters 
Developed prototypes to demonstrate to the customer, [the petitioner's] understanding 
of CPS' requirements. 
Developed, coded & tested ED1 and non ED1 components for TEM Applications 
Analyzed change requests to assess impact on system architecture and submit revised 
Technical Specifications. 
Developed ED1 components for File Processing, included: 
o 
 File Management - ZeroTouch, Connect: Direct@ & Trading Partner 
o Communicators - BTAgents 
o 
 8 1 1 ED1 File Parser 
o 997 Response Generator 
o 
 Core File Processing Engine - ECMap, MapTamer, Mercator & Java Maps 
o Java Framework 
o File Transformation & Loader 
Developed Non-ED1 components for File Processing included: 
o File Management 
o Communicators 
o 997 Response Generator 
o 
 Core File Processing Engine - ECMap, MapTamer, Mercator & Java Maps 
o Java Framework 
o File Transformation & Loader 
The petitioner summarized the beneficiary's knowledge as follows: 
Beneficiary has advanced level domain knowledge about TEMS applications and the 
technical development and implementation of expansion packs for TEMS applications. He 
has in depth knowledge about Control Point Solutions Bill Manager and Bill Tamer platform 
EAC 09 001 51029 
Page 5 
architecture. He was the Tech Lead for development of some critical ED1 and non-ED1 
components and most of the Readers for TEMS applications. . . . He has advanced level 
knowledge in development of different components and applications (Web, windows, web 
services and applications using core Java) for TEMS platform. He has advanced level 
understanding in 81 1 ED1 File Parser specification required for implementing the latest 
library in the platform components and advanced level knowledge in implementation of [the 
petitioner's] software tools, utilities and frameworks for TEMS applications including IRIS 
Java Framework for adapters and '997' Response Generator. These [company] tools are being 
used in the technical development and implementation of Telecom Expense Adapters for CPS 
TEMS applications. 
Beneficiary has thorough understanding of the technical framework of the entire TEM 
applications including its various expansion packs and adapters, as he has been involved in its 
analysis, design, and development at various stages. As a result of his work he has acquired 
unique and specialized knowledge of TEMS applications specifications and architecture, 
domain knowledge about TEMS applications and [company] sofhvare tools, utilities and 
frameworks for TEMS applications. . . . His unique and specialized knowledge is essential to 
implement the next phases of this project onsite. 
The petitioner further stated that the beneficiary, as a result of his involvement in the TEMS project, "holds 
knowledge that in [sic] not commonly held throughout [the petitioner's] organization and distinguishes him 
from those individuals who may have elementary or basic knowledge of these applications." The petitioner 
indicated that the knowledge he possesses is "not easily transferable to other IT professionals," and that the 
work cannot be performed by individuals who do not have "the advanced and in-depth knowledge of CPS 
TEMS applications, its architecture, and [the petitioner's] software tools, utilities, and frameworks for TEMS 
applications including IRIS Java Framework for adapters and '997 Response Generator being implemented 
within the TEMS applications." 
Finally, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States will include the 
following: 
Gather requirements for new reader architecture required to add additional 
functionality and features to the next release of CPS TEM platform. 
Build proof of concepts and Prototypes to evaluate new functionality to CPS TEM 
platform as well as for trade show demos and customer demonstrations. 
Prepare the system test plans in collaboration with the CPS team, develop system test 
cases, run the system test cases for CPS TEM platform. 
Conduct Integration & Acceptance Testing: in collaboration with CPS team 
Provide support to the QA group at CPS rectifying all defects logged. Provide onsite 
Deployment support to the implementation teams in US. 
Implement technology upgrades, i.e., shift CPS TEM applications from Unix to 
Linux or Windows where IRIS Java applications or components can work without 
any problem or limitation 
EAC 09 001 51029 
Page 6 
Document technical design specifications as well as diagnostic and evaluation 
testing. 
The petitioner's supporting evidence included a copy of the Outsource Agreement between the petitioner and 
Control Point Solutions, Inc., executed in August 2006, along with a Statement of Work dated July 5, 2006. 
The petitioner was contracted to develop new ED1 converters, and to support and maintain existing and new 
ED1 converters, for CPS's Expense Management Solutions. According to the project description "the 
converters are used to automate the processing of billing data provided by the service providers." The 
petitioner was to "provide resources and manage the transition to off-shore successfully." The Statement of 
Work indicates that "the primary skills identified for this engagement which involves developing and 
supporting ED1 Adapters are Java and ED1 81 1." The Statement of Work indicates that the petitioner's 
employees would also need to become familiar with the client's existing tools and technologies including 
ECMap, MapTamer, Cronicle, Mercator, TPPC and Card Catalog. 
Finally, the petitioner provided an organizational chart for the Control Point Solutions project team which 
lists the beneficiary as one of seven employees assigned to the Adapter Development Team. The chart 
depicts a total of 17 employees reporting to a project manager. 
The director issued a request for additional evidence on October 6, 2008, in which he advised the petitioner 
that the initial evidence did not establish that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge specific to the 
petitioning organization or that he would be employed in a position that requires such knowledge. The 
director instructed the petitioner to submit, inter alia, the following evidence: (1) a letter from the human 
resources department detailing the manner in which the beneficiary gained his specialized knowledge, 
supported by documentation of any training the beneficiary received since joining the foreign entity; (2) a 
detailed description of the actions and duties the beneficiary will perform on a daily basis, including a list of 
duties which require specialized knowledge; (3) the processes, procedures, tools or methods the beneficiary 
will use for each duty; and (4) the amount of time it takes to train an employee to use the specific tools, 
procedures and methods utilized by the company, and the number of similarly employed workers within the 
organization who possess such knowledge. 
In a response dated November 18, 2008, the petitioner emphasized that the beneficiary's assignment to the 
client project is "in relationlconnection to configuration, customization, implementation and management of 
[the petitioner's] proprietary TEM tools: Java Framework for Adapters, 997 Response Generator, 824 
Adapter. . . for which specialized knowledge specific to [the petitioner] is necessary." 
The petitioner explained that the company is "a software specialist in the Telecom Expense Management 
(TEM) space" with "uncommon knowledge of Telecom Adapters." The petitioner noted that Telecom 
Adapters "are built specifically to take electronic data contained in complex encoded formats and converting 
them into formats that are easily understood by software applications used by TEM vendors to provide the 
services they do." The petitioner emphasized that it has over four years of experience in the field and "has not 
only built specialized knowledge in this space but also built specific solutions and components that speed up 
many services and processes for TEM vendors," thus making the petitioning company a "vendor of choice." 
EAC 09 001 51029 
Page 7 
The petitioner indicated that its key company-specific components include the Iris Java Framework for 
adapters, the Iris 997 Response Generator for TEM which is "targeted at sending error messages to 
telecommunications providers on the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) format files that the telecom provider 
sends to the consumer of their services," and the Iris 824 Adapter for TEM, which "consolidates . . . rejections 
on payments and reports them to the Invoice and Audit departments at their customers' offices to make 
correction at their ends." 
The petitioner indicated that it has provided services to CPS for over two years, during which time it has 
migrated the client's electronic bill parsing environment to the Iris Java Framework; developed and deployed 
over 50 new adapters at CPS; and modernized the client's operational environment to newer server hardware 
and newer database versions. 
With respect to the beneficiary's qualifications and specialized knowledge, the petitioner indicated that he was 
assigned to the CPS project team in April 2007 because he: (1) had experience on Java technologies prior to 
joining the petitioner; (2) was identified as a key resource and trained to become a specialist in the petitioner's 
TEM practice; and (3) was assigned to work on a project team for another customer where he could acquire 
deeper experience as a practitioner in the TEM field. 
The petitioner stated that the beneficiary was hired in August 2005 and "received specialized 
classroom/workshop-based training for 8 weeks followed on with on-the-job training in [the petitioner's] 
TEM proprietary components for the next 5-6 months." The petitioner indicated that the training modules 
included Telecom Expense Management Software, TEM software development training, company policies 
and procedures for developing and delivering TEM applications, and software operational training. The 
petitioner stated that only six employees have completed this training, while other employees have received 
training on a "subset of these topics." 
The petitioner stated that as a result of the training the beneficiary "is designated as a key employee in [the 
foreign entity] and is continually assigned to perform specialized tasks." Specifically, the petitioner stated that 
the beneficiary has been performing as a technical IeaderJIris Java Framework Specialist on the CPS project 
performing the following duties: 
Conducting detailed requirements analysis and translated them into requirements 
specifications and technical specifications for adapters built using the Iris Java 
Framework to address Call detail 
Using the Iris Java Framework, developing ED1 components for File Processing. . . . 
Using the Iris Java Framework, developing Non-ED1 components for File 
Processing. . . . 
Providing support for the Iris components and existing Map-based TEM applications 
with its critical components - Bill Tamer - BT Agents, Core File Processing Engine 
Components, and 8 1 1 ED1 File Parser. 
Planning and conducting System & Integration Testing for TEM applications. 
Developing Proofs of Concept for ED1 maps to evaluate the technical feasibility 
Developing Proofs of Concept for TEM applications Expansion Pack and adapters 
EAC 09 00 1 5 1029 
Page 8 
Analyzing change requests to assess impact on system architecture and submit 
revised Technical Specifications for the Iris Java Framework and the TEM 
applications 
Upgrading and migrating software from one platform to another. 
The petitioner's supporting documentation included a description of the company's TEM practice offerings 
and an overview of the Iris Java Framework for Adapters. 
The petitioner also submitted a "TEMS Training Plan" designed to "ensure that [company] personnel are 
oriented and trained to perform software development work on Telecom Expense Management Solutions." 
The training plan indicates that new resources at the foreign entity receive eight weeks (40 days) of training. 
The petitioner provided a letter from the foreign entity verifying that the beneficiary completed the classroom- 
based training followed by six months of on-the-job training "required for him to be proficient as a key 
individual to work on [the petitioner's] telecom expense management (TEM) tools." 
In addition, the beneficiary provided a copy of the beneficiary's resume. He indicates that he has worked on 
the "Telecom Readers Development and Maintenance" project for CPS as a software engineer since April 
2007, using Eclipse 6.0, JDK 1.4, ANT, Oracle 8.X and CPS proprietary profiles. The beneficiary's resume 
indicates that he worked on a similar project for another client from October 2005 until March 2007. The 
beneficiary had six years of experience as a software consultant, specializing in Java technologies, prior to 
joining the foreign entity. 
The petitioner provided additional documentation specific to the CPS "Reader development and Support" 
project, including a "Reader Orientation Document," a "Reader Testing Process Document," a test plan for 
the CPS Reader Migration and Support project; a BillTamer Accrual Module Training manual; a QA Process 
document; and, a Bill Manager 6.0 User Guide. 
The director denied the petition on November 26, 2008, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that the beneficiary will be employed in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge in the United States. The director acknowledged the voluminous supporting 
documentation submitted in support of the petition, but found that, based on such evidence, "the beneficiary 
[possesses] the same qualifications and training that can be found among the vast majority of individuals 
employed in the field," and within the petitioner's organization. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter dated January 20, 2009, in which it objects to the director's findings. 
The petitioner asserts that "methodologies and expertise used by [the petitioner] are unique and different from 
those used by competing businesses within the industry," and that the beneficiary is, by virtue of his training 
and experience, an elevated class of worker within the company and not an average employee. 
The petitioner emphasizes that TEM is a "highly specialized area with a limited number of TEM 
organizations with the capability to offer solutions and services in this space." The petitioner asserts that "less 
than 0.2% of all jobs advertised and less than 0.1% of all resumes posted on popular job sites have the skills 
required i.e. TEM, EDI, and 997 to perform these tasks." The petitioner indicates that the types of services 
provided by telecommunications services providers have exponentially increased with the introduction of new 
EAC 09 00 1 5 1029 
Page 9 
services, resulting in increasingly complex content in electronic bills which must be processed by TEM 
service providers in order to deliver the services that they are contractually committed to provide to their 
clients. The petitioner indicates that its Java-based TEM framework is capable of handling both ED1 and non- 
ED1 invoice files, is scalable to support various invoice formats like .TXT, .CSV and .MDB, facilitates rapid 
adapter development, is platform independent since it is based on Java technologies, and has in-built 8 1 1, 824 
and 868 Parsing capabilities. 
With respect to the beneficiary's qualifications, the petitioner states that, as a result of 41 months of 
experience of using the petitioner's tools to build TEM solutions for its clients, the beneficiary has a level of 
knowledge which no other company employee possesses. The petitioner states that, in addition to his project 
experience, the beneficiary "was instrumental in facilitating [the petitioner] in acquiring two significant 
awards in the TEM space, namely the Rivermine and Solnet projects." The petitioner explains that, although 
the petitioner was competing against other larger global software companies, "the depth of knowledge and 
experience of Beneficiary went a long way to secure these deals." The petitioner objects to the director's 
determination that the beneficiary's skills are commonly found in the industry, noting that while skills like 
Java and Oracle are widespread, very few people have skills like ED1 and 997. 
With respect to the petitioner's training policies, the petitioner explains that it offers entry-, intermediate- and 
advanced-level training, and that only a handful of selected employees are proposed for advanced training 
based on their skills, role and responsibility. The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary was chosen for 
advanced training "as he was hired to be an integral part of our TEM practice" based on his pre-acquired skills 
in JavdJ2EE technology using Struts 1.1 framework and Oracle. The petitioner states that after six months of 
classroom and on-the-job training, the beneficiary was one of six employees selected for "Advanced Training 
given by an external trainer." The petitioner indicates that the training was on "Advanced ED1 Data Mapping 
in Telecom Industry." The petitioner also contends that the beneficiary's salary with the foreign entity 
"suggests he is [a] 'key' employee or an 'elevated class of worker."' Specifically, the petitioner emphasizes 
that the beneficiary joined the company at a level much higher than entry-level and has since received nearly 
a 100 percent salary increase in recognition of his specialized skills and key role in client projects. 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner submits additional documentary evidence, including commendation 
letters and e-mails received by the beneficiary, salary records, and additional information regarding the 
petitioner's employee training and development programs. 
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has 
specialized knowledge or that he will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity as defined at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 2 14.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
Standard for Specialized Knowledge 
Looking to the language of the statutory definition, Congress has provided USCIS with an ambiguous definition 
of specialized knowledge. In this regard, one Federal district court explained the infeasibility of applying a 
bright-line test to define what constitutes specialized knowledge: 
EAC 09 00 1 5 1029 
Page 10 
This ambiguity is not merely the result of an unfortunate choice of dictionaries. It reflects the 
relativistic nature of the concept special. An item is special only in the sense that it is not 
ordinary; to define special one must first define what is ordinary. . . . There is no logical or 
principled way to determine which baseline of ordinary knowledge is a more appropriate reading 
of the statute, and there are countless other baselines which are equally plausible. Simply put, 
specialized knowledge is a relative and empty idea which cannot have a plain meaning. CJ: 
Westen, The Empty Idea of Equality, 95 Harv.L.Rev. 537 (1982). 
1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F.Supp. 9, 14-1 5 (D.D.C., 1990).' 
While Congress did not provide explicit guidance for what should be considered ordinary knowledge, the 
principles of statutory interpretation provide some clue as to the intended scope of the L-1B specialized 
knowledge category. NLRB v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23, 484 U.S. 112, 123 (1987) 
(citing INSv. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 107 S.Ct. 1207,94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987)). 
First, the AAO must look to the language of section 214(c)(2)(B) itself, that is, the terms "special" and 
"advanced." Like the courts, the AAO customarily turns to dictionaries for help in determining whether a word in 
a statute has a plain or common meaning. See, e.g., In re A.H. Robins Co., 109 F.3d 965, 967-68 (4th Cir. 1997) 
(using Webster's Dictionary for "therefore"). According to Webster's New College Dictionary, the word "special" 
is commonly found to mean "surpassing the usual" or "exceptional." Webster's, New College Dictionary, 1084 
(3rd Ed. 2008). The dictionary defines the word "advanced" as "highly developed or complex" or "at a higher 
level than others." Id. at 17. 
Second, looking at the term's placement within the text of section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act, the AAO notes that 
specialized knowledge is used to describe the nature of a person's employment and that the term is listed among 
the higher levels of the employment hierarchy together with "managerial" and "executive" employees. Based on 
the context of the term within the statute, the AAO therefore would expect a specialized knowledge employee to 
occupy an elevated position within a company that rises above that of an ordinary or average employee. See 
1 756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. at 14. 
Third, a review of the legislative history for both the original 1970 statute and the subsequent 1990 statute 
indicates that Congress intended for USCIS to closely administer the L-1B category. Specifically, the original 
drafters of section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act intended that the class of persons eligible for the L-1 classification 
would be "narrowly drawn" and "carefully regulated and monitored" by USCIS. See generally H.R. Rep. No. 91- 
851 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750,2754, 1970 WL 5815. The legislative history of the 1970 Act 
plainly states that "the number of temporary admissions under the proposed 'L' category will not be large." Id. In 
addition, the Congressional record specifically states that the L-1 category was intended for "key personnel." 
See generally, id. The term "key personnel" denotes a position within the petitioning company that is "[olf 
crucial importance." Webster S New College Dictionary 620 (3'* ed., Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing 
' 
 Although 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General was decided prior to enactment of the statutory definition of 
specialized knowledge by the Immigration Act of 1990, the court's discussion of the ambiguity in the legacy 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) definition is equally illuminating when applied to the definition 
created by Congress. 
EAC 09 001 51029 
Page 11 
Co. 2008). Moreover, during the course of the sub-committee hearings on the bill, the Chairman specifically 
questioned witnesses on the level of skill necessary to qualify under the proposed "L" category. In response 
to the Chairman's questions, various witnesses responded that they understood the legislation would allow 
"high-level people," "experts," individuals with "unique" skills, and that it would not include "lower 
categories" of workers or "skilled craft workers." See H.R. Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. Comm., Immigration 
Act of 1970: Hearings on H.R. 445,9 1" Cong. 2 10,2 18,223,240,248 (Nov. 12, 1969). 
Neither in 1970 nor in 1990 did Congress provide a controlling, unambiguous definition of "specialized 
knowledge," and a narrow interpretation is consistent with so much of the legislative intent as it is possible to 
determine. H. Rep. No. 91-85 1 at 6, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2754. This interpretation is consistent with legislative 
history, which has been largely supportive of a narrow reading of the definition of specialized knowledge and the 
L-1 visa classification in general. See 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F.Supp. at 15-16; Boi Na Braza 
Atlanta, LLC v. Upchurch, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 2372846 at *4 (N.D.Tex., 2005), afd 194 
Fed.Appx. 248 (5th Cir. 2006); Fibermaster, Ltd. v. INS., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1990 WL 99327 (D.D.C., 
1990); Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Action 00-2977-LFO (D.D.C. April 6, 2001)(on file with 
AAO). 
Further, although the Immigration Act of 1990 provided a statutory definition of the term "specialized 
knowledge" in section 214(c)(2) of the Act, the definition did not generally expand the class of persons eligible 
for L-1B specialized knowledge visas. Pub.L. No. 101-649, 5 206(b)(2), 104 Stat. 4978, 5023 (1990). Instead, 
the legislative history indicates that Congress created the statutory definition of specialized knowledge for the 
express purpose of clarifying a previously undefined term from the Immigration Act of 1970. H.R. Rep. 101- 
723(I) (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67 10, 6749, 1990 WL 20041 8 ("One area within the L visa that 
requires more specificity relates to the term 'specialized knowledge.' Varying interpretations by INS have 
exacerbated the problem."). While the 1990 Act declined to codify the "proprietary knowledge" and "United 
States labor market" references that had existed in the previous agency definition found at 8 C.F.R. 
3 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) (1988), there is no indication that Congress intended to liberalize its own 1970 definition of 
the L- 1 visa classification. 
If any conclusion can be drawn from the enactment of the statutory definition of specialized knowledge in section 
2 14(c)(2)(B), it would be based on the nature of the Congressional clarification itself. By not including any strict 
criterion in the ultimate statutory definition and further emphasizing the relativistic aspect of "special knowledge," 
Congress created a standard that requires USCIS to make a factual determination that can only be determined on a 
case-by-case basis, based on the agency's expertise and discretion. Rather than a bright-line standard that would 
support a more rigid application of the law, Congress gave the INS a more flexible standard that requires an 
adjudication based on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. C$ Ponce-Leiva v. Ashcroft, 33 1 F.3d 
369,377 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89,91 (9th Cir. 1988)). 
To determine what is special or advanced, USCIS must first determine the baseline of ordinary. As a 
baseline, the terms "special" or "advanced" must mean more than simply "skilled" or "experienced." By 
itself, work experience and knowledge of a firm's technically complex products will not equal "special 
knowledge." See Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. 49, 53 (Comm. 1982). In general, all employees can 
reasonably be considered "important" to a petitioner's enterprise. If an employee did not contribute to the 
overall economic success of an enterprise, there would be no rational economic reason to employ that person. 
EAC 09 00 1 5 1029 
Page 12 
An employee of "crucial importance" or "key personnel" must rise above the level of the petitioner's average 
employee. In other words, specialized knowledge generally requires more than a short period of experience; 
otherwise special or advanced knowledge would include every employee in an organization with the 
exception of trainees and entry-level staff. If everyone in an organization is specialized, then no one can be 
considered truly specialized. Such an interpretation strips the statutory language of any efficacy and cannot 
have been what Congress intended. 
Considering the definition of specialized knowledge, it is the petitioner's, not USCIS's, burden to articulate 
and prove that the beneficiary possesses "special" or "advanced" knowledge. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. tj 11 84(c)(2)(B). USCIS cannot make a factual determination regarding the beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of the claimed 
specialized knowledge, describe how such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain 
how and when the beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
Once the 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. A 
petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge of the processes and procedures of 
the company must be supported by evidence describing and distinguishing that knowledge from the 
elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. Because "special" and "advanced" are comparative 
terms, the petitioner should provide evidence that allows USCIS to assess the beneficiary's knowledge 
relative to others in the petitioner's workforce or relative to similarly employed workers in the petitioner's 
specific industry. 
Analysis 
In examining the specialized knowledge of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's description of 
the job duties and the weight of the evidence supporting any asserted specialized knowledge. See 8 C.F.R. 
tj 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a detailed job description of the services to be performed sufficient to 
establish specialized knowledge. Id. Merely asserting that the beneficiary possesses "special" or "advanced" 
knowledge will not suffice to meet the petitioner's burden of proof. 
Upon review, the petitioner in this case has failed to establish either that the beneficiary's position in the 
United States requires an employee with specialized knowledge or that the beneficiary has specialized 
knowledge. While the petitioner has provided a detailed description of the beneficiary's duties, such duties do 
not appear uncommon for a software consultant specialized in Java application development, and require him 
to use knowledge and technical skills which are widely available in the information technology industry. The 
petitioner acknowledges that the beneficiary was hired due to his existing skills in JavaIJ2EE technology 
using Struts 1.1 framework and Oracle, but claims that it his experience with the petitioner's own Java 
Framework, TEM solutions, and experience with the CPS project which form the basis of the specialized 
knowledge. 
Therefore, the first question before the AAO is whether the beneficiary's knowledge of and experience with 
the petitioner's tools, processes and methodologies alone constitutes specialized knowledge. While the current 
statutory and regulatory definitions of "specialized knowledge" do not include a requirement that the 
EAC 09 001 51029 
Page 13 
beneficiary's knowledge be proprietary, the petitioner cannot satisfy the current standard merely by 
establishing that the beneficiary's purported specialized knowledge is proprietary. The knowledge must still 
be either "special" or "advanced." As discussed above, the elimination of the bright-line "proprietary" 
standard did not, in fact, significantly liberalize the standards for the L-1B visa classification. 
Reviewing the precedent decisions that preceded the Immigration Act of 1990, there are a number of 
conclusions that were not based on the superseded regulatory definition, and therefore continue to apply to the 
adjudication of L-1B specialized knowledge petitions. In 1981, the INS recognized that "[tlhe modern 
workplace requires a high proportion of technicians and specialists." The agency concluded that: 
Most employees today are specialists and have been trained and given specialized knowledge. 
However, in view of the [legislative history], it can not be concluded that all employees with 
specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are eligible for classification as 
intracompany transferees. The House Report indicates the employee must be a "key" person 
and associates this employee with "managerial personnel." 
Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. at 1 19-20. 
In a subsequent decision, the INS looked to the legislative history of the 1970 Act and concluded that a "broad 
definition which would include skilled workers and technicians was not discussed, thus the limited legislative 
history available therefore indicates that an expansive reading of the 'specialized knowledge' provision is not 
warranted." Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 5 1. The decision continued: 
[I]n view of the House Report, it cannot be concluded that all employees with any level of 
specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are eligible for classification as 
intra-company transferees. Such a conclusion would permit extremely large numbers of 
persons to qualify for the "L-1 " visa. The House Report indicates that the employee must be 
a "key" person and "the numbers will not be large." 
Id. at 53. 
According to the reasoning of Matter of Penner, work experience and knowledge of a firm's technically 
complex products, by itself, will not equal "special knowledge." USCIS must interpret specialized knowledge 
to require more than fundamental job skills or a short period of experience. An expansive interpretation of 
specialized knowledge in which any experienced employee would qualify as having special or advanced 
knowledge would be untenable, since it would allow a petitioner to transfer any experienced employee to the 
United States in the L- 1 B classification. 
The proprietary specialized knowledge in this matter is stated to a framework, tools and utilities developed by 
the petitioner for its TEM consulting practice. Specifically, these tools and methodologies are said to include 
the Iris Java Framework, Iris 997 Generator, and '824 Adapter." According to the evidence submitted, the Iris 
Java framework "is based on the general Java API" or Application Programming Interface. The petitioner 
develops adapters within this framework using C, C# and Java. The adapters receive billing data from a 
variety of sources (telecom carriers and services), convert the data into a set of pre-defined formats and load 
EAC 09 001 51029 
Page 14 
data into the client's Expense Management application. The petitioner indicates that its adapters cater to 
different invoice sources (AT&T, Verizon, MCI, Sprint, etc.), formats (ED1 81 1, CSV, Excel, Access, SQL), 
different services (voice data, wireless, phone cards, VPN, etc.) and data output requirements. Essentially, the 
adapters "take electronic data contained in complex encoded formats and convert[s] them into formats that are 
easily understood by software applications used by TEM vendors to provide services." While the petitioner 
has explained the capabilities of its "Java-based TEM framework," it has not established how knowledge and 
experience with this framework alone would constitute specialized knowledge. The framework itself and the 
adapters developed within the framework appear to be based on industry-standard technologies and tailored to 
meet the needs of the TEM domain. The petitioner has noted the relatively small number of companies that 
cater to the TEM sector, but has failed to differentiate its solutions and technology from those offered by 
TEM vendors themselves, or by other consulting firms working in this sector. The AAO cannot determine 
whether the petitioner's framework based on "the general Java API" is anything more than a customized 
version of an industry standard that could readily be learned by any experienced Java developer. 
The petitioner further indicates that its company-specific tools and utilities include the '997 Generator' and 
'824 Adapter,' which appear to be error and rejection reporting functions incorporated into the overall 
framework. The petitioner's documentation indicates that the framework includes a mailing component which 
"takes care of all electronic communications like ED1 997, 810 & 824." Again, the petitioner has not 
explained the significance of these components or their relevance to the claim that the beneficiary's 
experience with the petitioner's TEM Java framework constitutes specialized knowledge. It is reasonable to 
believe that any automated solution for processing ED1 format invoices from telecommunications providers 
would have a mechanism for notifying the providers of ED1 non-compliance errors. 
The petitioner indicates that new hires who will be assigned to perform software development work on 
Telecom Expense Management Solutions receive eight weeks of classroom/workshop-based training. The 
training includes a three-day introduction to Telecom Expense Management, 14 days of training in the Java 
Framework for Adapters covering 81 1 parser, 824 parser, 997 generator, and mapping ED1 and non-ED1 
invoices, one day of training in setting up a TEM environment using Eclipse 6.0, 10 days of applying 
knowledge in testing, programming and live environments, five days of training in understanding and 
transforming user requests to integrate in adapters, two days of training in test planning and execution, one 
day of training in release planning, one day of training in software configuration management, and two days 
of "software operational training." The petitioner indicates that only six employees have completed this 
training, while others receive training in a "subset" of such topics. However, the AAO cannot find that 
completion of eight weeks of training is sufficient to bestow "specialized knowledge" not possessed by those 
who may have completed only part of the training, particularly as the petitioner has not provided an 
explanation as to why some new hires would be excused from completing the entire program specifically 
designed for new hires. Furthermore, the organizational chart for the CPS TEM project team alone includes a 
total of 18 employees. If only six employees in the company have completed the basic 8-week introduction to 
TEM, this raises questions as to whether employees are regularly assigned to work on client projects with 
little to no specific training at all in the company's TEM solutions and tools. 
The AAO acknowledges the petitioner's statement that the beneficiary completed an additional six months of 
on-the-job training. The petitioner does not indicate whether such training is the norm for newly hired 
workers assigned to the TEM practice, nor has it described the nature and scope of the training. Going on 
EAC 09 001 51029 
Page 15 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Crafi 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). According to the beneficiary's resume, he was assigned 
as a TEM Developer to develop and support adapters for a client's TEM system in October 2005, two months 
after joining the foreign entity. The beneficiary lists identical responsibilities for this role and his current role 
with the CPS project, and it appears that he has been fully performing the duties of the position since he 
completed the two-month training program for new hires. Furthermore, the record contains an e-mail from the 
petitioner's client, Avotus Corporation, dated March 27, 2006, in which it requests that the petitioning 
company "continue to set aside [the beneficiary] as our key contact." Although the petitioner indicates that 
the beneficiary was in training from August 2005 until April 2006, this evidence further suggests that the 
beneficiary was fully performing the responsibilities of a TEM consultant without completion of an extensive 
training period. 
Based on a review of the totality of the evidence submitted regarding the petitioner's solutions and its internal 
training programs, it appears that the company's Java framework, tools and utilities, while highly effective 
and valuable to the petitioner, are simply customized versions of standard practices used in the industry that 
can be readily learned on-the-job by employees who otherwise possess the requisite technical background in 
Java application development and appropriate functional background for the project to which they will be 
assigned. For this reason, the petitioner has not established that knowledge of its framework and tools alone 
constitute specialized knowledge. The evidence does not support a conclusion that the petitioner's TEM 
solutions are particularly complex or different compared to those offered by other companies in the industry, 
or that it would take a significant amount of time to train an experienced Java consultant who had no prior 
experience with the petitioner's family of companies. To the contrary, the minimal evidence submitted 
suggests that the majority of the petitioner's employees are not required to undergo any extensive training in 
the company's processes, framework and methodologies. 
For these reasons, the petitioner has not established that knowledge of its framework, tools and utilities alone 
constitute specialized knowledge. 
The petitioner argues that a secondary component of the beneficiary's purported specialized knowledge is his 
existing knowledge of the client's TEM platform architecture, including Bill Manager and Bill Tamer 
software, and his understanding of the client's requirements. The beneficiary's familiarity with the 
unaffiliated employer's systems and requirements, while valuable to the petitioner, cannot be considered 
knowledge specific to the petitioning organization and cannot form the basis of a determination that he 
possesses specialized knowledge. All technical consultants within the petitioning organization would 
reasonably be familiar with its unique internal processes and methodologies for carrying out client projects in 
their assigned functional domain. Similarly, most employees would also possess project-specific knowledge 
relative to one or more clients. However, the fact that the beneficiary possesses very specific experience with 
a particular onshore-offshore client project does not establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is indeed 
special or advanced. 
The AAO acknowledges the beneficiary's designation as a "technical lead" on the offshore component of the 
project and the petitioner's evidence that the beneficiary has received significant salary increases as a result of 
EAC 09 001 51029 
Page 16 
his performance since joining the foreign entity. However, the AAO cannot attribute the beneficiary's 
relatively high salary to "specialized knowledge." 
All employees can be said to possess uncommon skill or experience to some degree. 
 Moreover, the 
proprietary qualities of the petitioner's process or product do not establish that any knowledge of this process 
is "specialized." A skill set that can be easily imparted to another similarly educated and generally 
experienced Java developer is not "specialized knowledge." The petitioner must establish that qualities of the 
processes, procedures, and technologies require this employee to have knowledge beyond what is common in 
the industry. This has not been established in this matter. The beneficiary's rise from new hire to technical 
lead has not been shown to be due to his comparatively advanced knowledge of the petitioner's solutions and 
technologies. The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary was identified for his position based on his years of 
prior experience with Java frameworks and applications development. 
The AAO does not dispute that the beneficiary is a skilled and experienced employee who has been, and 
would be, an asset to the petitioner. However, as explained above, the record does not distinguish the 
beneficiary's knowledge as more advanced than the knowledge possessed by other people employed by the 
petitioning organization or by workers employed elsewhere. Nor does the evidence establish that the 
beneficiary's training, work experience, or knowledge of the company's frameworks and tools is more 
advanced than the knowledge possessed by others employed by the petitioner, or that the processes used by 
the petitioner are substantially different from those used by other technology consulting companies working 
in the TEM domain. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is any more 
advanced or special than the knowledge held by a skilled worker. See Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 52. 
The legislative history for the term "specialized knowledge" provides ample support for a restrictive 
interpretation of the term. In the present matter, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
should be considered a member of the "narrowly drawn" class of individuals possessing specialized 
knowledge. 
 See 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, supra at 16. 
 The record does not establish that the 
beneficiary has specialized knowledge or that the position offered with the United States entity requires 
specialized knowledge. Accordingly, the petition will be denied. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
DISCUSSION: The appeal is dismissed.