dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Department of fiomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
wfying &;? dekted 0 
vent clear. ,HI* ,md 
bvaion of pittdnaI p- 
PUBLK: COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 06 009 50753 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: APR (P 3 2008 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 1 (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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 06 009 50753 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonirnmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center, and 
certified to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for affirmation or withdrawal pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 103.4(a). Upon review, the decision of the director will be affirmed, and the petition will be 
denied. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as a system developer as 
an L-1B nonimmigrant intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
 The 
petitioner is a business information technology consulting firm that "provides product development and 
consulting services in all aspects of systems and software engineering to companies throughout the 
world." 
 The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a system developer for a period of three years. 
1 
Citing to the anti "job shop" provisions of the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004, the director denied the 
petition as an impermissible arrangement to provide labor for hire.2 Specifically, the director concluded 
that the beneficiary, who will be stationed primarily at a worksite of an unaffiliated employer, will be 
1 
The AAO notes that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) records indicate that the petitioner has 
filed a total of 16,429 L-1B petitions, with more than 3,979 petitions filed during fiscal year 2006. 
2 
The term "job shop" is commonly used to describe a firm that petitions for aliens in L-1B status to 
contract their services to other companies, often at wages that undercut the salaries paid to U.S. workers. 
Upon introducing the L-1 Visa Reform Act, Senator Saxby Chambliss described the abuse as follows: 
The situation in question arises when a company with both foreign and U.S.-based 
operations obtains an L-1 visa to transfer a foreign employee who has "specialized 
knowledge" of the company's product or processes. The problem occurs only when an 
employee with specialized knowledge is placed offsite at the business location of a third 
party company. h this context, if the L-1 employee does not bring anything more than 
generic knowledge of the third party company's operations, the foreign worker is acting 
more like an H-1B professional than a true intracompany transferee. Outsourcing an L-1 
worker in this way has resulted in American workers being displaced at the third party 
company. 
149 Cong. Rec. S11649, *S11686,2003 WL 22143 105 (September 17,2003). 
In general, the L-1B visa classification does not currently include the same U.S. worker protection 
provisions as the H-1B visa classification. See generally, 8 C.F.R. §§ 2 14.2(h) and (1). The L-1B visa 
classification is not subject to a numerical cap, does not require the employer to certifL that the alien will 
be paid the "prevailing wage," and does not require the employer to pay for the return transportation costs 
if the alien is dismissed from employment. Additionally, an employer who files a petition to classify an 
alien as an L-1B nonimmigrant would not pay the $1,500 fee that is currently required for each new H-1B 
petition and which funds job training and low-income scholarships for U.S. workers. See Section 
2 14(c)(9) of the Act. 
WAC 06 009 50753 
Page 3 
employed in a position which is essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire for the unaffiliated 
employer, Spirent Communications (hereinafter "the unaffiliated employer"). The director further 
determined that the beneficiary does not have specialized knowledge of a product or service specific to 
the petitioner. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed 
the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, 
for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the 
United States. 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 managerial, 
executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(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 education, training, and employment qualifies hider 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. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 11 84(c)(2)(B), provides: 
For purposes of section 101(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. 8 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 
WAC 06 009 50753 
Page 4 
application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in 
the organization's processes and procedures. 
I. L-1 Visa Reform Act 
As amended by the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004, section 214(c)(2)(F) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 
1 184(c)(2)(F), provides: 
An alien who will serve in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to an 
employer for purposes of section 1 101(a)(15)(L) and will be stationed primarily at the 
worksite of an employer other than the petitioning employer or its affiliate, subsidiary, or 
parent shall not be eligible for classification under section 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) if - 
(i) the alien will be controlled and supervised principally by such unaffiliated 
employer; or 
(ii) the placement of the alien at the worksite of the unaffiliated employer is 
essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire for the unaffiliated 
employer, rather than a placement in connection with the provision of a 
product or service for which specialized knowledge specific to the 
petitioning employer is necessary. 
Section 214(c)(2)(F) of the Act was created by the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004 and is applicable to all 
L-1B petitions filed after June 6, 2005, including extensions and amendments involving individuals 
currently in L-1 status. See Pub. L. No. 108-447, Div. I, Title N, 1 18 Stat. 2809 (Dec. 8, 2004). The 
primary purpose of the L-1 Visa Reform Act amendment was to prohibit the "outsourcing" of L-1B 
intracompany transferees to unaffiliated employers to work with "widely available" computer software 
and, thus, help prevent the displacement of United States workers by foreign labor. See 149 Cong. Rec. 
S11649, *S11686, 2003 WL 22143 105 (September 17, 2003); see also Sen. Jud. Comm., Sub. on 
Immigration, Statement for Chairman Senator Saxby Chambliss, July 29, 2003, available at 
<http://judiciary.senate.gov/member~statement.cfm?id =878&wit_id=3355> (accessed on July 16,2007). 
In evaluating a petition subject to the terms of the L-1 Visa Reform Act, the AAO must emphasize that 
the petitioner bears the burden of proof. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1361; see also 8 C.F.R. 4 
103.2(b)(l). If a specialized knowledge beneficiary will be primarily stationed at the worksite of an 
unaffiliated employer, the statute mandates that the petitioner establish both: (1) that the alien will be 
controlled and supervised principally by the petitioner, and (2) that the placement is related to the 
provision of a product or service for which specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning employer is 
necessary. Section 214(c)(2)(F) of the Act. These two questions of fact must be established for the 
record by documentary evidence; neither the unsupported assertions of counsel or the employer will 
suffice to establish eligibility. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998); Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner fails to establish both of these elements, 
the beneficiary will be deemed ineligible for classification as an L-1B intracompany transferee. 
WAC 06 009 50753 
Page 5 
A. Threshold Question: Worksite of Beneficiary 
As a threshold question in the analysis, CIS must examine whether the beneficiary will be stationed 
primarily at the worksite of the unaffiliated company. Section 2 14(c)(2)(F) of the Act. 
As noted on page 3 of the Form 1-129, in the field entitled "Address where the person(s) will work," the 
petitioner stated that the work location for the beneficiary will be at the unaffiliated employer located in 
Sunnyvale, California. The petitioner also stated in its letter of support, dated October 4,2005, that it wishes 
for the beneficiary to enter the United States for a period of three years as a system developer for a project at 
the unaffiliated employer. Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the beneficiary will be primarily 
employed as a system developer at the worksite of the unaffiliated employer. 
Therefore, under the terms of the L-1 Visa Reform Act, the petitioner must establish both: (1) that the 
alien will be controlled and supervised principally by the petitioner, and (2) that the placement is related 
to the provision of a product or service for which specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning 
employer is necessary. Section 2 14(c)(2)(F) of the Act. 
B. Control and Supervision of Beneficiary 
The first issue under the L-1 Visa Reform Act analysis is whether the petitioner has established that the 
alien will be controlled and supervised principally by the petitioner, and not by the unaffiliated employer. 
Section 2 14(c)(2)(F)(i) of the Act. 
Notwithstanding the director's finding to the contrary, the petitioner has not satisfied this prong of the L-1 
visa Reform Act test. The petitioner asserted on the Form 1-129 that the beneficiary will be supervised 
by the Project Manager, an employee of the petitioner. The petitioner further explained that the 
beneficiary will be supervised through "weekly meetings, emails, status reports, and conference calls." 
However, no evidence was submitted in support of this statement. The petitioner does not provide 
evidence to document how, exactly, the beneficiary will be managed and controlled while offsite at the 
unaffiliated employer's workplace. Going on record without supporting evidence will not satisfy the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Furthermore, despite the director's specific request for evidence, the petitioner did not provide sufficient 
documentation to establish whether the beneficiary will be controlled and supervised principally by the 
petitioner. On October 21, 2005, the director requested copies of contracts, statements of work, work 
orders, and service agreements between the petitioner and the unaffiliated employer, describing 
specifically the services to be provided by the beneficiary. In response, the petitioner submitted a 
document titled "Master Agreement for Professional Services" (hereinafter "Master Agreement") between 
the petitioner and the unaffiliated company. 
The AAO notes that the Master Agreement provides for projects that are led by the unaffiliated employer 
using the petitioner's personnel. According to section 1.4 of the Master Agreement, it states that the 
"persons assigned by Vendor [the petitioner] to perform the Services shall have appropriate technical and 
professional skills aid experience to enable them to perform their duties in a professional and 
workmanlike manner, consistent with generally accepted industry standards." The same section also 
WAC 06 009 50753 
Page 6 
states that the petitioner "shall use commercially reasonable efforts to maintain continuity of its personnel 
until completion of the project." Thus, the petitioner is responsible for managing projects that are 
assigned by the unaffiliated employer and also obligated to commit personnel to projects led or managed 
by the unaffiliated employer. This provision of the Master Agreement raises unanswered questions as to 
which entity manages and controls the personnel that are committed to projects led by the unaffiliated 
employer. 
The Master Agreement raises additional questions. As concluded by the director, the beneficiary appears 
to be serving as a "programmer for hire" who will, at most, make changes to the unaffiliated employer's 
existing systems and software. According to section 1.1 of the Master Agreement submitted by the 
petitioner, the petitioner shall provide the unaffiliated employer "professional services in information 
technology, including consulting, programming, application development, maintenance and support 
services and technical, engineering, design, conversion, development and implementation, site 
management, site operations, training, project management and related services from time to time during 
the term of this Agreement." Since the beneficiary will primarily provide support and maintenance of the 
unaffiliated employer's systems, the AAO cannot determine who actually supervises and controls the 
beneficiary. 
Finally, despite the director's request for documents relating to the specific services to be provided by the 
beneficiary, the Master Agreement fails to provide evidence of the beneficiary's specific work assignment 
and services the beneficiary will provide to the unaffiliated employer. The Master Agreement does not 
address the beneficiary's assignment or duties. According to Section 1.1, it states the following: 
The scope and description of specific services ("Services") to be provided by Vendor [the 
petitioner] and specific deliverables to be created and provided to CUSTOMER [the 
unaffiliated employer] as part of the Services ("Deliverables" will be mutually agreed and 
set forth in individual Statement of Work ("SOW" or "Statement of Work"). Each 
Statement of Work that may be executed by the Parties under this Agreement will be 
substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, referencing this Agreement. 
The petitioner declined to submit a statement of work or a work order with the beneficiary's itinerary. 
Absent such information, the petitioner has not established that it will principally control and supervise 
the alien beneficiary or even that the beneficiary will be employed at the claimed worksite. 
Accordingly, the petitioner's failure to fully respond to the director's request for evidence is fatal to its 
claimed eligibility. The petitioner's failure to submit the requested evidence precluded a material line of 
inquiry and shall be grounds for denying this petition. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(14). 
Moreover, as the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be controlled and supervised by 
the petitioner during his employment at the unaffiliated employer's workplace, the petition may not be 
approved for this additional reason. 
C. Necessity of Specialized Knowledge Specific to the Petitioning Employer 
The second issue under the L-1 Visa Reform Act analysis is whether the petitioner has established that the 
WAC 06 009 50753 
Page 7 
beneficiary's placement is related to the provision of a product or service for which specialized knowledge 
specific to the petitioning employer is necessary. Section 2 14(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the Act. 
The petitioner described the beneficiary's job duties and purported specialized knowledge in a letter dated 
October 4,2005 as follows (with emphasis deleted): 
The [unaffiliated employer's] project is specialized in nature because it involves expertise 
with [the petitioner's] Telecommunications industry practice group tools, procedures, and 
methodologies. [The petitioner's] telecommunications industry practice offerings span 
the entire gamut of the telecommunications spectrum. [The petitioner] offers unparalleled 
breadth and depth of domain knowledge in terms of both processes and technology; 
services suited for all stages of the information technology life cycle from planning to 
maintenance; well-defined and time-test methodologies; flexible and scalable niche 
products; and partnerships with leading product vendors. 
The project involves developing Test Automation Solutions for various clients of [the 
unaffiliated employer]. It involves visiting the [the unaffiliated employer's] customers 
for requirement analysis, prepare the design, script using SmartLib functions and testing 
the application. The efficient development, support, and maintenance of [the unaffiliated 
employer's] applications require specialized knowledge of [the petitioner's] proprietary 
tools including Smartest, Assent, and Revine, as well as advanced knowledge of [the 
unaffiliated employer's] applications. Assent will be used to ensure that the programs 
adhere to the defined standard, thereby enabling a reduction in software development and 
maintenance costs, as well as in the time spent on code inspections. Revine will be used 
to aid in program understanding through extraction of business rules, Entity Relationship 
models, and process models and cross reference in these Applications. This will be used 
to reengineer the legacy applications. Revine will also be used in providing a state-of- 
the-art mechanism to analyze programs for problem diagnosis and change impact 
analysis. SmarTEST will be used for automating the functional and regression testing of 
network equipment and is also used for managing test cases, executing automation scripts 
in correct sequence and generating customized reports. 
As previously noted, the director requested additional evidence on October 21, 2005. The director 
requested, inter alia, further evidence establishing that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge; 
evidence that he will be controlled and supervised by the petitioner; a description of where the beneficiary 
will work; and evidence that the placement of the beneficiary at the unaffiliated employer's worksite is 
not an arrangement to provide labor for hire. The director specifically requested copies of contracts, 
statements of work, work orders, and service agreements between the petitioner and the unaffiliated 
employer for the services to be provided by the beneficiary. The director also requested copies of the 
petitioner's human resource records that would provide the beneficiary's job description and worksite 
location. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter dated January 9, 2006 from the petitioner explaining the 
beneficiary's specialized knowledge and indicating the beneficiary's itinerary; a letter from the petitioner, 
dated January 4, 2006, stating that the beneficiary is certified as a Spirent Performance Expert; a third 
WAC 06 009 50753 
Page 8 
letter from the petitioner, dated January 5, 2006, outlining the beneficiary's duties with the petitioner; 
and, a copy of the "Master Agreement for Professional Services" signed in November 2005, between the 
petitioner and the unaffiliated employer. 
In the January 5, 2006 letter, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary began his employment with the 
company on October 10, 2003, and the letter outlined his assignments with the petitioner since that date. 
The petitioner asserted that the beneficiary has "been trained on each of these tools through a rigorous 
training program and has also used them successfully in his current and previous assignments at [the 
petitioner." The letter also stated that the beneficiary "has played a mentoring and review role on the 
projects to which he has been assigned in relation to other team members." 
The petitioner also submitted an itinerary for the beneficiary. The itinerary outlines the beneficiary's 
schedule at the unaffiliated employer's location, and it runs from January 16, 2006 through January 3 1, 
2007. The itinerary indicated one year of work with the unaffiliated employer; however, the petitioner 
requested three years of L-1B status on behalf of the beneficiary. The petitioner explained that the 
beneficiary will be placed at the work site location of the unaffiliated employer. 
On January 24, 2006, the director denied the petition. The director concluded that the beneficiary, who 
will be stationed primarily at a worksite of an unaffiliated employer, will be employed in a position which 
is essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire for the unaffiliated employer. The director further 
determined that the beneficiary does not have specialized knowledge of a product or service specific to 
the petitioner. Specifically, the director concluded as follows: 
It appears from the record that the placement of the beneficiary outside the Petitioning 
organization is essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire rather than the 
placement in connection with the provision of a product or service. The service the 
petitioner is providing is, essentially, programmers for hire to change the petitioner['s] 
client's already existing system andlor software rather than develop their own software. 
The specialized knowledge the beneficiary possesses is that of the petitioner's tools, 
procedures, and methodologies to be applied to the client's existing program. Therefore, 
the beneficiary's knowledge is only tangentially related to the performance of the 
proposed offsite activity. 
In essence, the beneficiary will be working on a product that is used to conform with the 
client's specification and needs, rather than a product unique to the specifications and 
needs of the petitioner. In this case, the specialized knowledge is not specific to the 
petitioner. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that the placement of the beneficiary at the 
worksite of the unaffiliated employer is not merely labor for hire. 
Reviewing the petitioner's claims, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge of 
the petitioner's processes and procedures. In particular, the petitioner stated in its response to the 
director's request for evidence that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge of the petitioner's 
proprietary tools including Smart Test, Revine and Assent. Further, the petitioner asserted that the 
WAC 06 009 50753 
Page 9 
beneficiary will use his specialized knowledge of these tools in his capacity as an employee of the 
petitioner, which has been hired by the unaffiliated employer to implement the tools necessary for the 
development and testing of the unaffiliated employer's software development project. 
Overall, the petitioner described the beneficiary as having specialized knowledge "of [the petitioner's] 
proprietary development procedures, methodologies, and tools" that will be the integral components used 
for the project with the unaffiliated employer. The petitioner further explained that the beneficiary has 
been worlung on the same project abroad and that the beneficiary's specialized knowledge of the 
unaffiliated employer's requirements permits him to work more efficiently. The petitioner stated that with 
"over 40,000 employees to choose from," the beneficiary was identified as the ideal candidate based on 
his work abroad where he gained experience with the petitioner's tools. 
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are not persuasive. The petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary's placement is related to the provision of a product or service for which specialized knowledge 
specific to the petitioning employer is necessary. Section 214(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the Act. To the contrary, the 
petitioner has described the beneficiary as having knowledge of the processes and procedures of the 
unaffiliated employer. 
The submitted Statement of Work fails to provide evidence of the beneficiary's specific work assignment 
and services the beneficiary will provide to the unaffiliated employer. As previously noted, the Master 
Agreement provides for projects that are led by the unaffiliated employer using the petitioner's personnel. 
According to section 1.4 of the Master Agreement, it states that the "persons assigned by Vendor [the 
petitioner] to perform the Services shall have appropriate technical and professional skills and experience 
to enable them to perform their duties in a professional and workmanlike manner, consistent with 
generally accepted industry standards." The same section also states that the petitioner "shall use 
commercially reasonable efforts to maintain continuity of its personnel until completion of the project." 
Thus, the petitioner is responsible for managing projects that are assigned by the unaffiliated employer 
and also obligated to commit personnel to projects led or managed by the unaffiliated employer. 
As also previously indicated, the beneficiary appears to be serving as a "programmer for hire" who will, 
at most, make changes to the unaffiliated employer's existing systems and software. According to section 
1.1 of the Master Agreement submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner shall provide the unaffiliated 
employer "professional services in information technology, including consulting, programming, 
application development, maintenance and support services and technical, engineering, design, 
conversion, development and implementation, site management, site operations, training, project 
management and related services from time to time during the term of this Agreement." 
The Master Agreement does not address the beneficiary's actual assignment or duties or otherwise detail 
the beneficiary's itinerary. Despite the director's specific request for documents relating to the services to 
be provided by the beneficiary, the Master Agreement fails to provide evidence of the beneficiary's 
specific work assignment and services the beneficiary will provide to the unaffiliated employer. The 
Master Agreement does not address the beneficiary's assignment or duties. According to Section 1.1, it 
states that the services provided to the unaffiliated employer must be outlined on a statement of work. 
The petitioner declined to submit a statement of work or a work order with the beneficiary's itinerary. 
WAC 06 009 50753 
Page 10 
Other than the unsupported assertions of the petitioner, the record does not contain any documentation of 
the specific duties the beneficiary would perform for the petitioner's client. As such, the AAO cannot 
analyze whether his placement is related to the provision of a product or service for which specialized 
knowledge specific to the petitioning employer is necessary. 
CIS must examine the ultimate employment of the alien to determine whether the position requires 
specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning employer. Cf: Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 388 
(5th Cir. 2000)(determining that the final employer of contract nurses was the "more relevant employer" 
for purposes of determining immigration eligibility). In the present matter, the petitioner has failed to 
submit evidence of the alien's ultimate employment at the worksite of the unaffiliated employer. Going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Accordingly, the beneficiary is ineligible under section 214(c)(2)(F)(ii) for classification as an L-1B 
intracompany transferee having specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning employer. In order for 
an offsite specialized knowledge worker to be eligible for L-1B classification, the petitioner must 
establish that the beneficiary is not being employed as "labor for hire" for the unaffiliated employer. 
Finally, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary was selected for this project because he has worked on 
the same project abroad and because the beneficiary has specialized knowledge of the unaffiliated 
employer's requirements. Although the petitioner repeatedly asserts that the beneficiary has specialized 
knowledge of the petitioner's proprietary tools, the petitioner notes that these tools are utilized to monitor, 
test, and improve the quality of the unaffiliated employer's existing systems. In this matter, as the 
petitioner has asserted that the beneficiary's knowledge is related to the unaffiliated employer's processes 
and procedures, the beneficiary falls squarely within the prohibition imposed by the L-1 Visa Reform Act 
of 2004 on the "outsourcing" of L-1B nonimmigrants who do not have specialized knowledge related to 
the provision of a product or service specific to a petitioner. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's placement is related to the provision of 
a product or service for which specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning employer is necessary, 
and the petition may not be approved for that reason.' 
It is noted that, as the beneficiary is not required to possess knowledge of proprietary products or 
processes in order to be deemed to have specialized knowledge, the director's use of the word "unique" 
may not be entirely appropriate. At the same time and as noted above, when the petitioner claims that the 
beneficiary has experience with a proprietary product or procedure, this does not serve as prima facie 
evidence that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. As such, when the petitioner asserts, as it 
has in this matter, that a beneficiary has experience with proprietary products or procedures, CIS must 
carefully evaluate the claimed knowledge and the depth of the beneficiary's experience in order to 
determine whether it rises to the level of specialized knowledge as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. 5 
214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). Regardless, given that the director's decision does not clearly address this issue, the 
director's use of the word "unique" and his decision to deny the petition on this basis is withdrawn to the 
extent that any proprietary knowledge requirement was imposed. 
WAC 06 009 50753 
Page 11 
11. Specialized Knowledge 
Beyond the decision of the director, and contrary to the conclusion reached by the director, even if the 
beneficiary's knowledge were proven to be specific to the petitioning employer, the petitioner has also 
failed to establish that this knowledge is specialized as defined at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) and that 
the beneficiary has been or will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
In examining the specialized knowledge capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. $8 214.2(1)(3)(ii) and (iv). The petitioner must submit a 
detailed job description of the services to be performed sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. In 
this case, the petitioner fails to establish that the beneficiary's position in the United States requires an 
employee with specialized knowledge or that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge. 
Although the petitioner repeatedly asserts that the beneficiary's proposed position in the United States 
will require "specialized knowledge," the petitioner has not adequately articulated any basis to support 
this claim. The petitioner has provided a detailed description of the beneficiary's proposed responsibilities as 
a system developer; however, the description does not mention the application of any special or advanced 
body of knowledge which would distinguish the beneficiary's role from that of other system developers 
employed by the petitioner or the information technology or telecommunications industry at large. Going on 
record without documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972)). Based upon the lack of supporting evidence, the AAO cannot determine 
whether the U.S. position requires someone who possesses knowledge that rises to the level of specialized 
knowledge as defined at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
The petitioner has repeatedly asserted that the beneficiary will be utilizing the petitioner's proprietary tools 
including SmartTest, Revine and Assent; however, the petitioner did not submit evidence to demonstrate that 
the petitioning company is the only company, or one of the few that utilize these tools or similar tools. There 
is no evidence in the record that the beneficiary actually participated in the development of such 
methodologies and processes that might lead to the conclusion that his level of knowledge is comparatively 
"advanced." Although there is no requirement that the beneficiary must develop the internal methodologies 
and processes, this may be evidence of an advanced knowledge of the petitioner's internal processes that will 
demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses a specialized knowledge. Furthermore, according to the 
beneficiary's resume, it appears that the beneficiary immediately began worlung with the above-mentioned 
tools when he began his employment with the petitioner abroad as a team member. In addition, although the 
petitioner asserted that the beneficiary received training, it did not provide any information of the training 
program and information as to whether all system developers received the same training or if the training was 
limited to the beneficiary. Thus, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the processes and 
technology pertaining to the system developer positions for the petitioner are different from those applied 
for other companies providing software consulting services to the banking industry. While individual 
companies will develop a computer system tailored to its own needs and internal quality processes, it has 
not been established that there would be substantial differences such that knowledge of the petitioning 
company's processes and quality standards would amount to "specialized knowledge." 
WAC 06 009 50753 
Page 12 
Despite the petitioner's assertions, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's knowledge of 
programming for the telecommunications and network services industry, either in the context of the 
ongoing project being performed for the unaffiliated employer or in connection with his employment with 
the petitioner, constitutes "specialized knowledge." The record does not reveal the material difference 
between the beneficiary's knowledge of the banking programming tools and the ongoing implementation 
project and the knowledge possessed by similarly experienced programmers in the industry or in the 
petitioner's own organization. Without producing evidence that the petitioner's programming services are 
different in some material way from similar services offered on the market by similarly experienced 
software professionals, the petitioner cannot establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is noteworthy, 
uncommon, or distinguished by some unusual quality that is not generally known by similarly 
experienced personnel engaged within the beneficiary's field of endeavor. Again, going on record 
without documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
In addition, the petitioner did not submit any documentation to evidence that the beneficiary received 
additional training that was not provided to other network and system specialists employed by the foreign 
company. As noted earlier, although the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary received training, it 
did not provide any information of the training program and information as to whether all system 
developers received the same training or if the training was unique to the beneficiary. The petitioner 
did note that it has over 40,000 employees and that the project managers have the "opportunity to select a 
candidate that fulfills the requisite skills set." The petitioner also explained that the beneficiary worked 
abroad on a similar assignment for the unaffiliated employer. Knowledge related to a specific clients' 
project cannot be considered "specialized knowledge" specific to the petitioning company. 
 The 
beneficiary's familiarity with the U.S. clients' project requirements is undoubtedly valuable to the 
petitioner, but this knowledge alone is insufficient to establish employment in a specialized knowledge 
capacity. If the AAO were to follow the petitioner's logic, any technical consultant who had worked on a 
telecommunications client project team within the petitioner's organization would be considered to 
possess "specialized knowledge." 
The AAO does not discount the likelihood that the beneficiary is a skilled and experienced system 
developer who has been, and wouId be, a valuable asset to the petitioner's organization and to the 
unaffiliated employer. However, it is appropriate for the AAO to look beyond the stated job duties and 
consider the importance of the beneficiary's knowledge of the business's product or service, management 
operations, or decision-making process. Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. 1 17, 120 (Comm. 198 l)(citing 
Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. 61 8(R.C. 1970) and Matter of LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 8 16 (R.C. 1971)). 
As stated by the Commissioner in Matter of Penner, when considering whether the beneficiaries 
possessed specialized knowledge, "the LeBlanc and Raulin decisions did not find that the occupations 
inherently qualified the beneficiaries for the classifications sought." 18 I&N Dec. 49, 52 (Comm. 1982). 
Rather, the beneficiaries were considered to have unusual duties, skills, or knowledge beyond that of a 
skilled worker. Id. The Commissioner also provided the following clarification: 
A distinction can be made between a person whose skills and knowledge enable him or 
her to produce a product through physical or skilled labor and the person who is 
employed primarily for his ability to carry out a key process or function which is 
important or essential to the business firm's operation. 
WAC 06 009 50753 
Page 13 
Id. at 53. 
It should be noted that the statutory definition of specialized knowledge requires the AAO to make 
comparisons in order to determine what constitutes specialized knowledge. The term "specialized 
knowledge" is not an absolute concept and cannot be clearly defined. As observed in 1756, Inc. v. 
Attorney General, "[slimply put, specialized knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a plain 
meaning." 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). The Congressional record specifically states that the L-1 
category was intended for "key personnel." See generally, H.R. REP. NO. 91-851, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 
2750. The term "key personnel" denotes a position within the petitioning company that is "of crucial 
importance." Webster's II New College Dictionary 605 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 2001). 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. An employee of "crucial importance" or "key personnel" must rise above the level of 
the petitioner's average employee. Accordingly, based on the definition of "specialized knowledge" and 
the congressional record related to that term, the AAO must make comparisons not only between the 
claimed specialized knowledge employee and the general labor market, but also between the employee 
and the remainder of the petitioner's workforce. While it may be correct to say that the beneficiary in the 
instant case is a highly skilled and productive employee, this fact alone is not enough to bring the 
beneficiary to the level of "key personnel." 
Moreover, in Matter of Penner, the Commissioner discussed the legislative intent behind the creation of 
the specialized knowledge category. 18 I&N Dec. 49 (Comm. 1982). The decision noted that the 1970 
House Report, H.R. REP. NO. 91-85 1, stated that the number of admissions under the L-1 classification 
"will not be large" and that "[tlhe class of persons eligible for such nonimmigrant visas is narrowly drawn 
and will be carefully regulated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service." Id. at 51. The decision 
further noted that the House Report was silent on the subject of specialized knowledge, but that 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" slalls, and that it would not include "lower categories" of 
workers or "skilled craft workers." Matter of Penner, id. at 50 (citing H.R. Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. 
Comm., Immigration Act of 1970: Hearings on H.R. 445, 9 1 st Cong. 2 10, 2 18, 223, 240, 248 (November 
12, 1969)). 
Reviewing the Congressional record, the Commissioner concluded in Matter of Penner that an expansive 
reading of the specialized knowledge provision, such that it would include skilled workers and 
technicians, is not warranted. The Commissioner emphasized that the specialized knowledge worker 
classification was not intended for "all employees with any level of specialized knowledge." Matter of 
Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 53. Or, as noted in Matter of Colley, "[mlost employees today are specialists and 
have been trained and given specialized knowledge. However, in view of the House Report, it can not be 
concluded that all employees with specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are 
eligible for classification as intracompany transferees." 18 I&N Dec. at 119. According to Matter of 
Penner, "[s]uch a conclusion would permit extremely large numbers of persons to qualify for the 'L-1' 
visa" rather than the "key personnel" that Congress specifically intended. 18 I&N Dec. at 53; see also, 
WAC 06 009 50753 
Page 14 
1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. at 15 (concluding that Congress did not intend for the 
specialized knowledge capacity to extend to all employees with specialized knowledge, but rather to "key 
personnel" and "executives.") 
A 1994 Immigration and Naturalization Service (now CIS) memorandum written by the then Acting 
Executive Associate Commissioner also directs CIS to compare the beneficiary's knowledge to the 
general United States labor market and the petitioner's workforce in order to distinguish between 
specialized and general knowledge. The Executive Associate Commissioner notes in the memorandum 
that "officers adjudicating petitions involving specialized knowledge must ensure that the knowledge 
possessed by the beneficiary is not general knowledge held commonly throughout the industry but that it 
is truly specialized." Memorandum from James A. Puleo, Acting Associate Commissioner, Immigration 
and Naturalization Service, Interpretation of Specialized Knowledge, CO 214L-P (March 9, 1994). A 
comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge to the knowledge possessed by others in the field is therefore 
necessary in order to determine the level of the beneficiary's slulls and knowledge and to ascertain 
whether the beneficiary's knowledge is advanced. In other words, absent an outside group to which to 
compare the beneficiary's knowledge, CIS would not be able to "ensure that the knowledge possessed by 
the beneficiary is truly specialized." Id. The analysis for specialized knowledge therefore requires a test of 
the knowledge possessed by the United States labor market, but does not consider whether workers are 
available in the United States to perform the beneficiary's job duties. 
The record does not distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge as more special or advanced than the 
knowledge possessed by other system developers within the petitioning company or within the 
information technology industry. As noted above, based on the fact that the beneficiary immediately 
began working on assignments with the petitioning company utilizing its telecommunications products, it 
appears that any individual with similar experience in the information technology industry may work with 
the petitioner's products and learn its specific requirements fairly quickly. Thus, it appears that the 
petitioner's products are based on information technology systems that are common in the industry. 
Since the petitioner did not indicate a specific training program or the minimum requirements to fill the 
position of system developer, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is any 
different than the knowledge held by a trained technician or a skilled worker. See Matter of Penner, 18 
I&N Dec. at 52. If the AAO were to follow the petitioner's reasoning, then any employee who has 
worked with the petitioning company possesses specialized knowledge. However, based on the intent of 
Congress in its creation of the L-1B visa category, as discussed in Matter ofPenner, the petitioner should 
also submit evidence to show that the beneficiary is being transferred to the United States as a crucial key 
employee. 
As explained above, the record does not distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge as more special or 
advanced than the knowledge possessed by other similarly experienced persons employed by the 
petitioner's organization or in the industry generally. As the petitioner has failed to document any 
materially special or advanced qualities to the petitioner's product, processes or procedures, the 
petitioner's claims are not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary, while highly skilled, would be a 
"key" employee. There is no indication that the beneficiary has knowledge that exceeds that of other 
network and system specialists with experience with telecommunications programming tools and 
implementation, or that he has received special training in the company's methodologies or processes 
which would separate him fi-om other persons employed with the petitioner's organization or in the 
8 
WAC 06 009 50753 
Page 15 
industry at large. 
Furthermore, counsel's extensive reliance on the Puleo memorandum is misplaced. It is noted that the 
memorandum was intended solely as a guide for employees and will not supersede the plain language of 
the statute or regulations. Therefore, by itself, counsel's assertion that the beneficiary's qualifications are 
analogous to the examples outlined in the memorandum is insufficient to establish the beneficiary's 
qualification for classification as a specialized knowledge professional. While the factors discussed in the 
memorandum may be considered, the regulations specifically require that the beneficiary possess an 
. 
"advanced level of knowledge" of the organization's processes and procedures, or a "special knowledge" 
of the petitioner's product, service, research, equipment, techniques or management. 8 C.F.R. 5 
2 14.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). As discussed above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's knowledge 
rises to the level of specialized knowledge contemplated by the statute or the regulations. 
The legislative history of 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. Based on the evidence presented, it is 
concluded that the beneficiary has not been employed abroad, and would not be employed in the United 
States, in a capacity involving specialized knowledge. For this additional reason, the petition will be 
denied. 
The initial approval of an L-1B petition does not preclude CIS from denying an extension of the original 
visa based on a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications. See Texas A&M Univ., 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 
2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). Despite any number of previously approved petitions, CIS does not 
have any authority to confer an immigration benefit when the petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof 
in a subsequent petition. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied 
by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), 
affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting 
that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff 
can succeed on a challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the 
AAO's enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc., 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with 
the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the director's 
decision will be affirmed, and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision is affirmed. The petition is denied.