dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
MATTER OF X-USA INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 11 , 2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , an information technology solutions company , seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "Senior Consultant - ' under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(lS)(L), 8 
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The L-1B classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including 
its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employe e with "specialized knowledge" to 
work temporarily in the United States . 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petitiOn. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he 
was employed abroad and will be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge 
capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal , the Petitioner asserts that it established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. The Petitioner 
also contends that the Director wrongfully employed a higher than permissible standard of proof and 
failed to consider the evidence in its entirety. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must have 
employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, 
for 1 continuous year within 3 years preceding the Beneficiary's application for admission into the 
United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the Beneficiary must seek to enter the 
United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary 
or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. !d. 
If an individual will be serving the United States employer in a managerial or executive capacity, a 
qualified beneficiary may be classified as an L-1A nonimmigrant alien. If a qualified beneficiary 
will be rendering services in a capacity that involves "specialized k.J:l_owledge," the beneficiary may be 
classified as an L-IB nonimmigrant alien. !d. 
Matter of X-USA Inc. 
The statutory definition of specialized knowledge is as follows: 
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 ofknowledge of processes and procedures ofthe company. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). Federal regulations clarify'the special 
knowledge requirement as follows: 
[S]pecial 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). An individual petition filed on Form I-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 
(1)(1 )(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 him/her 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matt er of X- USA Inc. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been employed abroad and would be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity . On appeal , the Petitioner asserts 
that it established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge. 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner, which was established in 2012 and claims five U.S. employees, states that it is "the 
market leader in Agile, Java, Mobile Development, Big Data and Architecture , artd that it "helps its 
customer introduce Agile methods with the help of change management ,' coaching, and training. " 
The Petitioner indicated that its group of companies has over 600 employees worldwide employed in 
the Netherlands , and with its services and product offerings 
clustered around Continuous Delivery and DevOps , Agile, Full Stack development , Big Data & 
Science , Cloudification and Data Center Automation. 
In a letter signed by its chief financial officer (CFO), the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has 
worked for its Indian affiliate, as, a senior consultant -
since March 2014, performing the following duties: 
• Confer with Systems Analysts , Engineers , Programmers and others to design 
system and to obtain information on project limitations and capabilities , 
performance requirements & interfaces ; 
• Analyze user needs & software requirements to determine feasibility of design 
within time and cost constraints ; 
• Design , develop and modify software systems, using scientific analysis and 
mathematic models to predict and 
measure outcome and consequences of design; 
• Consult with customers about software systems design and maintenapce. 
• Supervise the work of programm ers, technologists and technicians and other 
engineering and scientific personnel ; 
• Modify existing software (including but not limited to platform) to correct 
errors , allow it to adapt to new hardware or to improve its performance ; 
• Develop and direct software systems testing and validation procedures , 
programming and documentation ; 
• Store, retrieve and manipulate data for analysis of system capabilities and 
requirements; 
• Coordinate software systems installation and monitor equipment functioning· to 
ensure specifications are met; 
• Obtain and evaluate information on factors such as reporting formats required , 
costs , and securit y needs to determine hardware configuration . 
3 
(b)(6)
Jldatter of X-[JSA Inc. 
The Petitioner explained that its group consists of six "specialized companies" including 
which 
Beneficiary's specialized knowledge relates to 
knowledge as follows: 
The Petitioner stated that the 
solutions and further described this 
[The Beneficiary] has an in-depth understanding of line of products, 
specifically and He has been part of team 
since early stages of this product and has detailed understanding of its various 
functionalities. He is part of the product owner's team and is responsible for defining 
the Product Feature Roadmap and deciding which feature will go in and 
which will not. 
He began the Test Automation of this product and has created the test automation 
framework and added test cases for mission critical functionalities. He is currently 
also responsible for identifying and automating the next best suitable candidate for 
automation so that Regression test cases can be automated, thus leading to reduced 
time to market and better Risk management. 
The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary has "a unique skill set and familiarity with all the 
features and functionalities of the product" based on his "long association \Vith the 
Product owner team of the product." Specifically, the Petitioner stated that he 
"personally automated most of the manual test cases to Automated test cases thus bringing down the 
testing time considerably," and that he is "one of the only members in the team who 
has all the knowledge required to work on products and take the product to the next level." 
With respect io the Beneficiary's proposed position as senior consultant - the 
Petitioner stated he will "manage overall product vision and continuous improvement" of the 
engineering process for the platform, including and 
products, and also work as an "implementation engineer for products." Specifically, the 
Petitioner stated he will perform the following duties: 
He will perform requirement elicitation and requirement analysis for future version of 
products based on market research and its validation through frequent interactions 
with customers and end-users. [The Beneficiary] will also perform product feature 
prioritization and facilitate feature-driven Devops Release Planning for multiple 
dependent product development teams, for maximized ROI on engineering effort. 
Additionally, he will drive engineering process optimization and coordination for 
Product Development teams distributed across USA; India, and the Netherlands by 
implementing Devops best practices. Finally, [the Beneficiary] will be responsible 
for development of common product vision towards supplementing and enhancing 
solutions for Continuous Integration, Continuous Delivery and Streamlined software 
release pipelines based on requirements of the client and market trend. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of X-USA Inc. 
The Petitioner went on to provide a "detailed hreakdown of Beneficiary's specialized skills" noting 
that such skills include an in-depth knowledge of the line of products including ' and 
. The Petitioner emphasized that the platform is the flagship product and that 
the Beneficiary has been involved in the product owner's team from the beginning, making his 
ftinctional knowledge of its architecture and engineering processes difficult to find in the United 
States. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary acquired these skills during 1.5 years. 
The Petitioner further emphasized that the Beneficiary has specialized skills in test automation needs 
and challenges across many business domains which is one reason he was selected for the product 
owner's team for The Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary has authored a well-
received technical book called "which collects his views and vision about Test 
Automation," and stated that the Beneficiary brings his vision to the product. The 
Petitioner also stated that "it is a rare occurrence and a niche skillset to use the test automation 
experience in developing a' product on Test Automation Management " and that it 
has taken the Beneficiary seven years to acquire these skills. 
Further, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has specialized skills in test automation delivery 
gained over 7 years, during which he has "worked in all phases of software development life cycle 
and has worked in capacity of Automation tester, Automation Test Architect and Automation Lead." 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's knowledge of the existing automation framework for 
product is/ "a niche skill" in the United States. Finally, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary has gained knowledge of test automation needs across multiple domains over a period of 
seven years, which allows him to understand the functionality of 
The P,etitioner's letter also included the following table listing the Beneficiary's relevant training: 
Training Date Skills Attained 
I 
July- Sep 2015 product vision for next 
year 2016 
I Apr- June 2015 Competitive analysis of 
Product against its peers 
I Jan- Mar 2015 product vision for year 
2015 
Oct- Dec 2014 Advance-level Training for 
product to understand all 
features of product in detail - -
July- Sept 2014 Beginner level knowledge about 
and feature understanding of 
- --- -
I Apr- June 2014 Generic knowledge about L 
and 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of X-USA Inc. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has completed the following certifications: Test 
Automation- BDD (June 2015); Test Automation - Selenium (December 2014); Certified Serum 
Master (July 2014); ISTQB Certified Associate (July 2010); SQL (Oracle certified professional) 
(June 2009) and Java (Sun-Certified Java Developer) (January 2009). 
The Petitioner provided a copy of the Beneficiary ' s resume. The resume indicates that the 
Beneficiary has worked for the Petitioner ' s Indian affiliate as a "QA Lead" in the health care 
domain, working specifically with the product, using third-party 
technologies such as Selenium Webdriver, Groovy and REST client automation. 
He states that for this assignment, he implemented based Automation framework 
for Behavior Driven Development. 
The Petitioner stated that it was submitting an organizational chart for the foreign entity showing the 
Beneficiary's placement within the product owner's team. The submitted chart shows 
the Beneficiary as one of eight employees, identified by first name only, in a department labeled 
"delivery" and ultimately reporting to ' 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE). The Director acknowledged the initial evidence , 
but advised the Petitioner that it had not articulated when the and products 
were developed, explained 
what role the Beneficiary played ir\. each product's development , or 
submitted evidence to show that he played a significant role in their development. The Director 
emphasized that the evidence 6f record did not establish how many employees received similar 
training in the company's products or why the Beneficiary's knowledge is considered special or 
advanced compared to other consultants employed within the Petitioner's organization or within the 
industry. The Director requested additional explanation and supporting documentary evidence to 
establish the nature of the Beneficiary ' s specialized knowledge, how and when he acquired it, and 
how it compares to the knowledge held by similarly employed workers within the company and 
within the industry 
J 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a letter containing much of the same information as its initial 
letter, and included the following breakdown of the Beneficiary's current duties performed for the 
foreign entity: · 
• Prioritize features for and to ascertain that Return on 
Investment (ROI) is not impacted (25%) 
• Implementing products in client environments (25%) 
• Customizing products & Creating/modifying plugins for 
products (20%) 
• Implementing Functional, Nonfunctional and Big Data Test automation usmg 
Behavior driven development (10%) 
• Performance analysis, platform tuning , infrastructure optimization and debugging 
on production servers ( 
1 0%) 
• Coaching /Training Products to client (1 0%) 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of X- USA Inc. 
\ 
The Petitioner restated the Beneficiary's training history and emphasized that the knowledge he 
acquired "is quite extensive and specialized and cannot be replaced as the training of any other 
personnel will incur cost and many man-hours for the petitioner." The Petitioner again submitted an 
organizational chart which identifies staff by their first name and places the Beneficiary as one of 
eight persons in a "delivery" team. The Petitioner also provided a letter providing the full names, 
educational qualifications, salaries, and experience of the other members of the Beneficiary 's team, 
including seven senior consultants and six consultants . 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from chief executive officer of the foreign. 
entity, who stated that the Beneficiary's role for the foreign entity can be divided into "product 
ownership and development'' duties and "quality control and test automation architect" duties and a 
list of duties under each heading. also listed 36 "tools used for automation" which 
includes Agile Methodology, Java, Selenium, Appium, 
HTTPClient, RESTClient, SOAPUI, Jenkins, Maven, MySQL, HTML, Unix Scripting 
among 
others. He listed seven tools used for the Beneficiary's duties as "Product Owner" which included 
serum method?logy, JIRA, Rally, MS Visio, MindMap, and Gherkin. 
stated that the Beneficiary 's training included a 5-day training in ' Product 
Roadmap" held in in March 2016, but he did not confirm the Beneficiary's completion 
of the training listed in the chart found in the Petitioner's letter. He emphasized that 
the Beneficiary's knowledge is specialized and advanced and that his services "are urgently required 
by our client in the United States." He further stated that the Beneficiary has undergone substantial 
training at the company's expense and that it would be economically disadvantageous to train 
another person in the same skills. 
In addition, explained that the "generic titles" on the Beneficiary's training certificates 
"do not represent the length, breadth, and nuances of the training actually received." The Petitioner 
submitted certificates the Beneficiary received for completion of the following training courses held 
by the foreign entity: 
• Cloud Computing - and (April 15-18, -----2016) 
• Metrics for Productivity and Efficiency m Agile Training (December 20-22, 
2015) 
• Techniques for a Great Product Owner Training (August 3-4, 2015) 
• BDD Training (February 21-22, 2015) 
• Advanced Java & Internals of Java (August 2-6, 2014) 
• Product Owner Training (May 17-18, 2014) 
The Petitioner also submitted information regarding its products and services, including a sample 
·response to a client's request for proposal which explains the Petitioner's approach to the client's 
Agile Transformation and its expertise in the client's domains. It briefly references 
and ~s tools that the Petitioner would use to deploy the client's solution and future 
releases. 
(b)(6)
Matter of X-USA Inc. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been and will be employed in a position requiring 
specialized knowledge. In denying the petition, the Director found that the record lacked 
substantiating details and corroborating documentation to establish how the Beneficiary's knowledge 
is different or advanced in comparison to other individuals working for the Petitioner's group or 
within 
the industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that it clearly explained that "the Beneficiary was part of the 
product owner's team from the very beginning" and that he "is therefore one of the 
very few people involved with the development of the product who therefore understands its 
evolution and intricacies." The Petitioner asserts that the Director did not adequately explain why 
the petition and supporting evidence failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has specialized 
knowledge and states that the decision constitutes an abuse of discretion in light of the abundant 
evidence submitted. The Petitioner also asserts the Beneficiary possesses all of the characteristics of 
an L-1 B specialized knowledge worker according to the latest US CIS policy guidance on this issue, 1 
and claims that the Director failed to take into account the impact the Beneficiary's transfer would 
have on the Petitioner's operations. 
B. Analysis 
The record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he was 
employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity 
as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
In order to establish eligibility, a petitioner must show that the individual beneficiary will be 
employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The statutory definition 
of specialized knowledge at Section 214( c )(2)(B) of the Act is comprised of two equal but distinct 
subparts. First, an individual is considered to be employed in a capacity involving specialized 
knowledge if that person "has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in 
international markets." Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Second, an individual is considered to be 
serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge if that person "has an advanced level of 
knowledge of processes and procedures of the company." Ibid.; see also 8 C .F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(D). A petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the 
beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the definition . Section 214(c)(2)(B) of 
the Act. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and 
type of evidence which establishes whether the beneficiary actually possesses specialized 
knowledge. US CIS cannot make. a factual determination regarding a given beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of the its 
1 The Petitioner cites to USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0 Ill , L-1 8 Adjudications Policy (Aug . 17, 20 15), 
https: //www.uscis .gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of X-USA Inc. 
products and services or processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field 
involved, and the nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. A petitioner should also describe how such 
knowledge is typically gained within the orgartization, and explain how and when the beneficiary 
gained such knowledge. · 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneficiary's 
knowledge is "special" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's 
knowledge against that of others. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge, the 
petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that a beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held 
throughout the particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. The 
ultimate question is whether the Petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the Beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is advanced or special, and that the 
Beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petltwner to establish eligibility. .A1atter of 
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). As noted by the Petitioner on appeal, the adjudication in 
the current matter requires that we determine whether the Petitioner has established the Beneficiary's 
eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. The "preponderance of the evidence" standard 
requires that the evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is "probably true," where the 
determination of "truth" is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. }vfatter 
ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (quoting Matter of E-A1-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 
(Comm'r 1989)). In evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by it~ quality. Thus, in adjudicating the petition pursuant to the preponderance of 
the evidence standard, we must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true. !d. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has special knowledge of the proprietary and 
the product. The Petitioner states that knowledge of its products cannot be gained 
outside of its group of companies, and that, within its group, the Beneficiary is "one of very few 
people" who can understand the products' "evolution and intricacies." 
Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or 
services and its application in international markets, a petitioner may meet its burden· through 
evidence that the beneficiar:,y has knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to the 
knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular industry. Knowledge that is 
commonly held throughout the petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person 
to another is not considered specialized. 
The Petitioner's claim 
rests on the fact that its products are proprietary and its assertions that the 
Beneficiary was involved in the development of the product since its very early stages. 
The current statutory and regulatory definitions of "specialized knowledge" do not include a 
requirement that a beneficiary's knowledge be proprietary. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). However, a petitioner might satisfy the current standard by establishing that a 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of X- USA Inc. 
beneficiary's purported specialized knowledge is proprietary, as long as the petitioner demonstrates 
that the knowledge is either "special" or "advanced." By itself, simply claiming that knowledge is 
proprietary will not satisfy the statutory standard. 
The Petitioner did not clearly describe or document the Beneficiary's role in the development of 
as a member of the "product owner's team." The Petitioner ' s initial letter included a very 
general description of the Beneficiary's current duties and contained only one passing reference to 
the Petitioner 's technology, noting that his duties, since March 2014, have included modifying 
"existing software (including but not limited to to correct errors." In response to the 
RFE, the Petitioner submitted two different position descriptions. The Petitioner's letter contained a 
description indicating that the Beneficiary spends 25% of his time on prioritizing features for 
and but the remainder of the duties appear to relate to providing 
customization, implementation and training for customers who purchase products . The 
foreign entity's letter contained a third, more detailed description of his current duties, indicating 
that the Beneficiary 's role is divided between "product ownership and development" and "quality 
control and test automation architect duties " and does not appear to focus on any customer-related 
duties. Finally , the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary ' s resume , in which he states that he has 
served as a "QA Lead" working on an project, in the "Health Care" domain, which 
suggests that he was working on a project for a client in that industry. The Beneficiary's resume 
does not mention any experience with or his role on the "product 
owner's team." 
Taken together, the submitted pos1t10n descriptions do not clearly or consistently describe the 
Beneficiary 's role in the development of the Petitioner 's proprietary product or related 
products and do not adequately support the Petitioner 's claim that his claimed specialized 
knowledge derives from his major role in the development of these products since their early stages. 
The Petitioner did not provide evidence in support of this claim , such as evidence of his work 
product or other documentation corroborating his product owner role. A petitioner's unsupported 
statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of 
proof. See Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft 
o.fCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'! Comm'r 1972)); see also Matter o.f Chawath e, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant , probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matt er of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Although the Petitioner submitted an 
organizational chart for the foreign entity, the chart was very general and simply depicted the 
Beneficiary as a member of an eight-person delivery team or department ; it did not corroborate his 
membership in the "product owner ' s team." 
In addition, the fact that the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary underwent progressive training in 
between April 2014 and September 2015 is inconsistent with its claim that the 
Beneficiary was intimatel y involved in the development of this product from its early stages since 
joining the company in March 2014. Further , it was unclear why an employee who was assigned to 
a "product owner 's team" to develop the product would require training in the same 
product the Petitioner stated he developed. Nevertheless , the Petitioner identified six different 
"trainings" broken into three-month time periods , but did not describe the nature of the training , 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of X- USA Inc. 
whether it was classroom or on-the-job training, identify the specific length of this training, or 
provide evidence of his completion of the training. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner placed more emphasis on the length of the Beneficiary's 
training and the associated expense of such training than it did on the Beneficiary's role in the 
development of1ts proprietary products. At the same time, the letter from the foreign entity did not 
mention the 15 months of training the Petitioner listed in both of its letters. Further, the Petitioner 
did hot provide further documentation of this training when it responded to the RFE. Rather it 
documented the Beneficiary's participation in six company-provided training courses completed 
over a total period of 18 days, and the foreign entity added that the Beneficiary had recently attended 
a five-day training in Product Roadmap at the group's office. Therefore, 
even ifthe Petitioner is claiming that the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge is based on a lengthy 
period of training in its products rather than on the actual development of those products, it has not 
adequately described the nature of this training or documented his completion of the training. 
Again, a petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be 
insufficient to carry its burden of proof. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). In sum, the Petitioner has not 
adequately documented its claim that the Beneficiary made substantial contributions to the 
development of or its claim that he completed 15 months of training related to this 
product. 
Further we note that, although the Petitioner's products are proprietary, the Petitioner has provided 
very little information regarding the and products in support of 
a claim that the knowledge required to work on these products could only be gained through either 
participation in the product's development or, alternately, through a lengthy period of training. The 
Petitioner provided a copy of the company's response to a request for proposal (RFP) as evidence of 
the "Agile Transformation" services that it provides, but this document provides no specific 
information regarding the products of which the Beneficiary is claimed to have specialized 
knowledge. This document only references and as "tools" used 
during the release/deployment management phase of a proposed client project. 
The Petitioner emphasized the value of the Beneficiary's breadth and depth of knowledge in 
different test automation technologies across various domains gained through his seven years of 
work experience, and the 'foreign entity listed a total of 45 tools the Beneficiary must use for his 
"automation" and "product oVvner" duties, of which 43 appear to be third-party programming, 
automation, testing, database, logging, scripting, and other technologies, and two of which, 
and described as "test automation management" and "software release 
management," respectively, are the company's own technology. While the Beneficiary is clearly 
well versed on a number of automated testing technologies across difierent platforms and domains, 
and we do not doubt that he is experienced with the Petitioner's products, the Petitioner has not 
provided has not provided sufficient explanation or evidence to support its claim that the 
Be:peficiary's proprietary knowledge is truly distinct or uncommon. 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter of X- USA Inc. 
We note that the Director requested relevant information in the RFE that would have assisted in 
making this determination, such as how long it takes for a trained software quality assurance 
professional in the field to acquire the knowledge needed to perform the duties expected of a senior 
consultant, how the knowledge required to customize and implement its products is different from 
that generally found among software professionals in the industry, and how the Beneficiary's 
training or experience compares to others who have received similar training. While the Petitioner 
responded to the RFE, much of this relevant information was missing from its response. 
Further, as noted, the extent of the information provided regarding the Beneficiary's training was 
limited to an uncorroborated chart showing approximately 15 months of training in 
products, and copies of certificates accounting for 18 days of training not listed elsewhere. The 
Petitioner did not submit any description or evidence of the 15 months of training, such as course 
titles and completion dates, the content of the training, a description of any on-the-job training, or 
information regarding the number of other employees who have completed similar training. While 
completion of company-specific training can support a claim of specialized knowledge, the 
Petitioner must still establish that the training conveyed knowledge that is not common in the 
industry and knowledge that could not be easily imparted to similarly qualified employees from 
outside the company. Without this evidence, we cannot determine how long it would 
take an IT 
professional with similar qualifications to acquire the knowledge needed to perform the duties of the 
senior consultant position, and we cannot determine whether the knowledge required for the position 
is distinct or uncommon in the industry. 
We have also considered whether the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge. Because "advanced knowledge" concerns 
knowledge of an organization's processes and 
procedures, the Petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidence that the Beneficiary has knowledge 
of or expertise in the organization's processes and procedures that is greatly developed or further 
along in progress, complexity and understanding in comparison to other workers in the employer's 
operations. Such,advanced knowledge must be supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart 
from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary is "one of the very few people involved with the 
development of the product who therefore understands its evolution and intricacies," and emphasizes 
that his_ salary is higher than that of his team members. As noted, the Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary is part of the "product 'owner's team" for it submitted a chart showing 
him as a member of an eight-member "delivery" team or department, the Beneficiary's resume states 
that he has been working on an project for a client or clients in the health care domain, 
and the Petitioner submitted "team details" for a total of eight senior consultants and six consultants. 
It is not clear whether these 14 employees are claimed to be on the "product owner's team" for 
The Petitioner listed~ the education level and salary for each employee, but the "duties" 
section briefly lists the employee's experience of area of specialization rather than the duties they 
actually perform for the foreign entity or technologies they use in their roles as consultants with the 
company. 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of X-USA Inc. 
Despite his "senior" job title and higher stated salary, we cannot determine that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge of company processes and procedures is advanced in relation to the Petitioner's other 
employees if we do not have sufficient information regarding those employees' relative knowledge 
and roles. If all of these employees are on the "product owner's team" then it is reasonable to 
believe that they have similar knowledge of the architecture, features and engineering processes of 
the Petitioner's products, and the Petitioner has not offered the information needed to compare 
the knowledge of "product owner" team members to that of employees who implement and support 
the same products. Further, as discussed above, the Petitioner has not adequately described or 
documented the Beneficiary's claimed role in the development of its products in support of its claim 
that this role resulted in his acquisition of advanced knowledge not widely held within the 
Petitioner's organization. 
Overall, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's expertise in the organization's 
processes and procedures after 22 months of employment is greatly developed or further along in 
progress, complexity; and understanding in comparison to other workers in the organization. Here, 
the Petitioner's claims are not supported by evidence setting the Beneficiary's knowledge of 
company processes apart from the elementary orbasic knowledge possessed by others. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary possesses various characteristics 
of a worker with qualifying specialized knowledge as set forth in USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-
601-011, supra, at 8. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient 
evidence to establish that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is either special or advanced. 
While the Beneficiary may be filling a role that may be beneficial to the Petitioner's competitiveness 
in the marketplace, this characteristic alone is not probative of his specialized knowledge. As noted 
in the memorandum, the "characte.ristics" listed by the Petitioner are only "factors that USCIS may 
consider when determining whether a beneficiary's knowledge is specialized" and such factors must 
be supported by evidence. !d. The memorandum highlights that "ultimately, it is the weight and 
type of evidence that establishes whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge." !d. at 
10. 
Finally, we note that the primary purpose of the Beneficiary's transfer to the United States is unclear 
based on the evidence submitted. The Petitioner initially stated that the Beneficiary "will manage 
overall product vision and continuous improvement of the Devops Engineering process" for the 
but also stated that he "will be working as an implementation engineer for the 
products." In response to the RFE, the foreign entity noted that the Beneficiary's services "are 
urgently required by our client in the United States and every bit of delay continues to hurt our 
company financially." However, the Petitioner never mentioned a specific client project to which 
the Beneficiary has been or would be assigned, which raises questions regarding the proposed nature 
of his U.S. duties, duties which have not described in detail in the record. · 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge and that he has been employed abroad and will be employed in a 
specialized knowledge capacity with the Petitioner in the United States. See Section 214( c )(2)(B) of 
the Act. 
13 
Matter of X- USA Inc. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 136. Here that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.f X-USA Inc., ID# 118540 (AAO Jan. 11, 2017) 
14