dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF .1-R-L- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 13,2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) consultin'g company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as an IT consultant in its new oftice 1 under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(IS)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(IS)(L). The L-IB classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including 
its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee with "specialized knowledge" to 
work temporarily in the United States. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: (I) the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, that he has been 
employed abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge, or that he will be employed in a 
specialized knowledge capacity in the United States; (2) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with 
the Beneficiary's foreign employer; (3) the foreign entity is doing business as defined in the regulations; 
and ( 4) the Petitioner has the financial ability to remunerate the Beneficiary and to commence doing 
business in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, contends that the Director made baseless and 
unsupported findings, and asserts that it has met all requirements for the requested classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," lor one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section IOI(a)(IS)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
1 The term "new office·· refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. s 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). This is the second "new office" petition the Petitioner filed on behalf of this 
Beneficiary, with the first one approved for a four month period, from October 4, 2016, until February 3, 2017. The 
Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary did not obtain an L-1 visa or enter the United States during the validity of 
the prior petition. The Director detennined that the Petitioner, which has not commenced operations in the United 
States, remains eligible to file as a new office. We will not disturb this determination. 
.
Maller of.I-R-L- LLC 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue renderin g his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a spec ialized knowledge capacity. !d. The petitioner 
must also estab lish that the beneticiary ' s prior education, training, and employment qualify him or 
her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(1)(3). 
If a beneficiary is coming in a specialized knowledge capacity to open a new office, the petitioner must 
submit evidence that it secured sufficient physic al premises to house its operation, evidence that the 
new business entity is or will be a qualifying organization, and evidence that it has the financial 
ability to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United States. See 
generally , 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(vi). 
Under the s tatute , a beneficiary is considered to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: ( 1) a 
"special" knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an 
"advanced" level of knowl edge of the proce sses and procedure s of the company. Section 
214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). A petitioner may 
estab lish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy 
either prong of the statutory definition of specialized knowledge. 
Specialized knowledge is also defined as knowledge possessed by an individua l of the petitioning 
organization's product, service, research, equipment , techniques, manag ement, 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(1)(I)(ii)(D). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is an affiliate of the Beneficiary's current emplo yer in Ireland, an 
IT consulting company owned by the Beneficiary and his spouse. The Beneficiary has served as the 
foreign entity's owner/director and as its sole technical consultant since 20 I 0. The foreign entity 
provides IT services on a contract basis to various clients in the United Kingdom and Ireland, with the 
Beneficiary typically receiving a daily rate for his services. The Petitioner, established in 2016, now 
seeks to employ the Beneficiar y in the U.S.-based position of "information technology consultant." 
The Petitioner sta tes that it expects to respond to local demand for IT workers and will "apply for roles 
advertised on internet search engines and web sites'' which are a match for the Benefici ary's skill set. 
Ill. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish how the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of IT -related to IBM A IX, Unix, and service oriented architecture (SOA) 
qualities as "specia lized knowledge " that is distinct or uncommon compared to what would norma lly 
be held by a similarly employed professional in the IT consulting industry. The Director found that 
there was insufficie nt evidenc e that the Beneficiary possesses company-specific knowledge of any 
particular product , service , or technique that qualitie s as special knowledge or that he possesses 
advanced knowledge of company processes and procedures that is greatly developed in compariso n 
2 
Mauer rif J-R-L- LLC 
to other workers in the industry. The Director concluded that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge, 
training, and experience that are common in the IT consulting sector. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that, while it is true that the Beneficiary has acquired general IT 
knowledge after 20 years in the industry, the Director did not recognize that he has developed a 
"unique skill set and advanced knowledge" since commencing employment with the foreign entity, 
and that he will use these skills for the U.S. company's benefit. 
The Petitioner claims that evidence establishes that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a 
specialized knowledge employee consistent with the USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0lll, L-
1 B Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 20 15), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy­
memoranda. Specifically, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is 
valuable to the foreign entity's competitiveness in the market, is uniquely qualified to contribute to 
the Petitioner's knowledge of foreign operating conditions, has been utilized as a key employee 
abroad, and possesses knowledge that can be gained only through extensive prior experience with 
the foreign entity. 
Specifically, the Petitioner claims that the foreign entity specializes in developing, implementing, 
and supporting IT systems focused on fraud detection, anti-money laundering, secure payment 
processing, data security, and secure billing systems for financial services companies. The Petitioner 
explains that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge of the company's services and 
knowledge of "the technical systems, designs and in-depth understanding of [the foreign entity's] 
solution to implement fraud prevention systems .... " The Petitioner emphasizes that he is "the only 
one who possesses [the Petitioner's] proprietary and unique know-how to set up fraud prevention 
systems," because he designed unique solutions and has experience configuring systems compliant 
with U.S., United Kingdom, and Irish anti-crime and anti-terrorism laws. 
As a threshold issue, we must determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. If the evidence is insutlicient to establish that he possesses 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that he has been employed abroad in a position 
involving specialized knowledge or would be. employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has both special and advanced 
knowledge. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and 
type of evidence which establishes whether or. not the beneficiary actually possesses specialized 
knowledge. We cannot make a factual determination regarding a given beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of its 
products and services or processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field 
involved, and the nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how 
such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the 
individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
3 
.
lvfatter of J-R-L- LLC 
A. Special Knowledge 
Determining whether a beneficiary has "special knowledge" requires review of a given beneficiary's 
knowledge of how the petitioning organization manufactures, produces, O( develops its products, 
services, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. Because "special 
knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its 
application in international markets, a petitioner rna)·. meet its burden through evidence that the 
benericiary 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 
a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to another is not considered 
·special knowledge . 
. Here, the Petitioner has not clearly or consistently articulated the nature of the claimed specialized 
knowledge, and the record contains insufficient evidence establishing the nature of the work the 
Beneficiary has performed since founding the foreign entity in 20 I 0. These ambiguities make it 
ditlicult to identify \Vhat knowledge the Beneticiary actually possesses and where and how he 
acquired it. 
As noted, the foreign entity is essentially a one-person lT consulting business that does not appear to 
offer any company-specific products or any documented specialized service. The record shows that 
the foreign entity signs agreements to have the Beneficiary fulfill consulting roles on other firms' 
client projects as a subcontractor.· The Petitioner submitted documentation showing the 
Beneficiary's assignment as consultant to the following clients in the two years preceding the filing 
of the petition: 2 . 
• December 2016 to June 2017 - Assigned to as a 
software development adviser (under contract to 
• December 2015 to June 2016- Assigned to as 
consultant/ AIX Engineer (under contract to 
• June 2015 to December 2015- Assigned to work for as an onsite 
specialized in middleware systems integration on Unix operating systems 
(under contract with 
In the initial supporting documents, the Petitioner indicated that the company 
is "unique" because its 
"employees" (i.e., the Beneficiary) have specialized skills in: IT systems engineering for companies 
engaged in financial services, retail and corporate IT services; software upgrading and patching; 
software development, technical qualify assurance, and application infrastructure builds. The 
Petitioner mentioned that the Beneficiary is skilled in best practices across a number of industries 
(including banking, retail and energy), and is able to fill roles requiring many years of experience. 
However, merely claiming that the Beneficiary acquired a breadth of IT experience over a ·sustained 
2 ln contrast, the Beneficiary's resume shows that he worked for 
2015, for between May 2015 and November 2015, and for the 
May2015. 
4 
since December 
from January 2010 to 
.
.Marter qf J-R-L- LLC 
period of time is insufticicnt to show how the Beneficiary is set apart from others who are capable of 
providing the same services. The Pet1tioner did not differentiate the foreign entity's services from 
those offered by other IT consulting companies or explain how the Beneficiary's knowledge is truly 
different or uncommon. 
The Petitioner identified the AlX operating system as the primary tool common to all of its work, 
noting that AJX is "a specialized tool that is owned by IBM and sold by IBM panners widely to the 
international marketplace." The Petitioner mentioned a "big shortage of supply of technical 
specialists" able to use the IBM AIX tool, and stated that it would require 10 years of training and 
experience to develop knowledge comparable to the Beneficiary's. However, it did not further 
elaborate on or document this shortage of AIX specialists or explain how knowledge of this third­
party technology should be considered special knowledge relevant to the petitioning organization. 
Based on the Petitioner's later claims, this technology is used for systems administration in many 
industries and it appears more likely than not that knowledge of AIX is neither particularly unusual 
nor difficult to obtain. In fact, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary became an expert in the 
technology primarily through self-study. 
Although the Petitioner submitted a statement from the Beneficiary elaborating on his education, 
training, work history, responsibilities, and technical knowledge, he did not explain how his 
combination of training, education, and experience resulted in his possession of knowledge that is 
truly distinct or uncommon among similarly educated and experienced consultants. 
The Beneficiary stales that he 
completed "specialized systems training on IBM systems in 2000, and 
has· engaged in "personal research and study on IBM and systems." His resume shows 
"academic and practical training on ·completed in 1987 at the 
course in computer applications 
programming and design at a senior 
college in 1985, and a "computer science degree" from 
in the United States. 3 
' The assignments summarized in the Beneficiary's resume (with 
and , as noted, do not correspond to the clients named 
in the foreign entity's contracts and the Petitioner did not provide an explanation for this apparent 
discrepancy. Nevertheless, the Beneficiary's resume describes three different client assignments he 
has held since 2010. The jab descriptions indicates his experience with AIX systems administration, 
IBM Tivoli technologies, Windows VM, PL SQL, and functional experience in the tinancial 
industry in the areas of secure payments, anti-money laundering, identify security, and SOX 
compliance. The resume does not mention specialized knowledge or skills that are specific to the 
foreign entity's operations. 
The Petitioner's initial evidence also included a letter from Associate Professor in 
Computer Science at describes the Beneficiary as a "top 
technical talent" and Unix Systems Administrator who has self-studied and "always upgraded his 
3 
According to the submined transcript, the Beneficiary completed one semester of study at 
5 
.
Mauer ofJ-R-L- LLC 
skills to obtain advanced roles as a self-employed technology consultant." He goes on to state that 
the Beneficiary has been in demand for roles related to integration architecture, and 
in which he implements systems that use messaging systems and 
He opines that the Beneficiary has a "unique profile of technical consulting in the field of 
Unix and Middleware Systems" which is "technologically outstanding" because it touches 
upon the latest technologies used in industrial and commercial enterprises." Finally, 
conc1udes that the Beneficiary has specialized technological skills in computer science and a deep 
knowledge "possessed by only a tremendously small set of professionals." 
We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not show how the Beneficiary's 
technical skills and experience with IBM AIX, and Unix technologies constitute specialized 
kno'l-vledge that is distinct or uncommon compared to other IT consultants. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from 
universities. professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. 
Mauer of Caron lnt 'J, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. 
!d. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated or is in any way 
questionable. Jd. 
Here, while we do not question finding that the Beneficiary is a talented IT 
professional with marketable skills, he does not reference the statutory or regulatory definitions of 
"specialized knowledge" or explain how the Beneficiary's knowledge and experience with third­
party technologies qualifies him under those detinitions. Rather, it appears that the Beneficiary is 
well-versed in common technologies and able to perform duties at a high level in those areas. The 
record simply lacks evidence that AIX, Unix, and technologies are uncommon specializations 
in the IT field to the extent that any "professional with extensive experience in these technologies 
must be considered to have "special knowledge." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner also referenced the 
Beneficiary's ability to design technical solutions as being indicative of his specialized knowledge. 
The Petitioner provided examples of design work the Beneficiary had performed for the 
that would allow it to make changes to its global market trading systems in order to comply 
with regulations. The Petitioner stated that such work can only be pertormed by an IT consultant 
with up to 10 years of experience that includes soft\.vare development, data security, time stamping, 
audit control, networking, testing, systems architecture, storage, performance , and optimization. The 
Petitioner explained that most IT consultants "possess one or two elements of specialized knowledge 
that is suitable for more general IT work," but do not have the capability to design IT solutions. The 
Petitioner also attached U.S. job listings tor two contract positions (technical leader for a position in 
the telecommunications industry, and a senior infrastructure engineer), noting that the Beneficiary 
"is suitably in possession of the specialized knowledge required to perform either of the above 
roles." 
.
Mailer ofJ-R-L - LLC 
However, specialized knowledge requires more than possession of a long tenure in a particular 
industry, highly technical knowledge, or a complex skill set. Neither of the job listings requires an 
employee with knowledge that is specific to the foreign entity or a product or specific service 
provided by the company, because the company does not offer a product or claim to provide a 
distinct, specialized service. The Petitioner's response to the Director's RFE once again highlighted 
the breadth and depth of the Beneficiary's IT experi'ence, but did not identify any aspect of his 
knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to other similarly trained and experienced 
workers in the industry. While a technical designer may perform more complex duties than some 
types of IT workers, it does not follow that the ability to design solutions for clients using a range of 
skills and third-party technologies constitutes specialized knowledge as defined in the statute or 
regulations. 
Finally, on appeal, the Petitioner primarily highlights the Beneficiary's knowledge of the financial 
services industry, including its technical requi.rements and its governing regulatory compliance 
framework. Specit!cally, the Petitioner points ·to the Beneficiary's assignments with 
and banking institutions including and 
noting that such companies "require technical skilled IT professionals to implement, 
support and develop JT systems to perform functions such as anti-money laundering, secure payment 
processing, data security and fraud detection." However, the foreign entity's work with and 
banking and financial services companies is not well-documented in the record. As noted, the 
Petitioner documented the torcign entity's relationships with only three clients, including 
and We do acknowledge, however, that the Beneticiary 
mentions and in his resume. 
The Petitioner emphasizes that there is a large· demand for IT contractors in the global financial 
services industry. While such demand undoubtedly exists, the Petitioner did not articulate how the 
possession of functional knowledge of the lT needs of this major global industry constitutes special 
knowledge not commonly held among IT consultants. Many individual consultants , and entire IT 
consulting firms, have a functional or industry specialization in this expansive field. Therefore, the 
Beneficiary's knowledge and experience with "this area of specialization within the IT field is 
insufficient to establish that he possesses special kno~ledge, even if such knowledge and experience 
are in high demand. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also asserts fur th~ first time that the Benetlciary has proprietary 
knowledge based on his development of anti-~raud and anti-terror ism solutions for the 1inancial 
services sector. The Petitioner asserts that such knowledge makes the foreign entity unique in the 
industry. Further, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's knowledge can be considered 
specialized because he is able to develop systems that comply with international anti-fraud and anti­
terrorism laws applicable to the banking industries in the United States, Ireland, and the. United 
Kingdom. 
The documents submitted to establish the Bene~ciary's "proprietary knowledge" consist of several 
examples of his work product for the While it appears that he assisted a client with 
the development of technical solutions, the Petitioner did not establish that these solutions are 
., 
Matter of J-R-L- LLC 
proprietary to the foreign entity, rather than to the client. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient 
explanation regarding the work product in support of its claim that the foreign entity offers a 
specialized or even unique solution for the financial services industry. Further, the Petitioner did not 
further explain why knowledge of laws and regulations pertaining to the banking industry would be 
considered "special knowledge" among IT consultants working in this sector, who are responsible 
for designing systems that are compliant with such regulations. 
Overall, the record contains insufficient evidence to establish that the Bene!iciary's knowledge of 
third-party software systems, tools and platforms, his technical design skills, or his financial industry 
experience, even in combination, constitute "special knowledge" that is truly distinct or uncommon 
compared to knowledge generally possessed among similarly trained professionals in the IT 
consulting industry. 
In fact, the Petitioner indicates that its initial business plan is to have the Beneficiary apply for 
contract IT positions that tit his qualifications. The two example U.S. job openings the Petitioner 
identified as suitable for the Beneficiary appear to require completely different skill sets and neither 
is in the financial services industry. This only serves to support a finding that the Beneficiary is an 
IT consultant with a broad and deep skill set, rather than an employee possessing specialized 
knowledge specific to the foreign entity's products or services. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possesses special knowledge that can be 
considered distinct or uncommon in the industry: 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner has not established, m the alternative, that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge. 
Detenninations concerning "advanced knowledge" require review of a beneficiary's knowledge of 
the petitioning organization's processes and procedures. A petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidence that a given 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. Also, as with special 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 Beneficiary is the foreign entity's only IT employee and will, at least initially, be the 
Petitioner's only employee. Therefore, there are no other employees in either company to whom the 
Beneficiary's knowledge can be compared. The Petitioner has not identified any company-specific 
process'es or procedures in support of a claim that the Beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge, 
nor has it shown how the Beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity, where he was essentially 
a selt~employed consultant for hire, resulted in his acquisition of knowledge that is not commonly 
8 
Maller of J-R-L- LLC 
held in the lT consulting field. [n fact, the Petitioner has indicated at times, that the foreign entity 
can continue to operate after the Beneficiary's transfer by simply hiring IT consultants to work on its 
contracts. This plan undermines the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge 
that can is truly specialized, rather than knowledge that is generally held or knowledge that could be 
readily acquired by other IT workers. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a specialized 
knowledge employee consistent with the US CIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-1 B 
Adjudicalions Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https:!/www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. However, for 
the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is either special or advanced. While the Beneficiary has been 
and would be filling a role beneficial to the company's competitiveness in the marketplace, this 
characteristic alone is not probative of his specialized knowledge. As noted in the memorandum, the 
"characteristics'' listed by the Petitioner are only "factors that USCIS may consider when 
determining whether a beneficiary's knowledge is specialized." /d. The memorandum emphasizes 
that "ultimately, it is the weight and type of :evidence that establishes whether the beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge'' /d. at 13. The Petitioner here has not submitted sufficient 
evidence to establish how the Beneflciary' s knowledge qualifies as "special" or "advanced'' 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, 
we need not further address whether the Beneticiary has been employed abroad in a position 
involving specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
IV. QUALIFYfNG ORGA~IZATION ABROAD 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that it has a 
qualitying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer or that the foreign entity has been 
doing business as a qualifying organization abroad. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship," the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. one entity with "branch" 
offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See section lOl(a)(IS)(L) of the 
Act: see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii) (providing definitions of the terms "parent," "branch," 
"subsidiary," and "affiliate"). 
A qualitying organization must meet exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the 
regulations and must be doing business "as an employer in the United States and in at least one other 
country" tor the duration of a beneficiary's stay in L-1 classification. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(G). "Doing business" means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of 
goods and/or services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an 
agent or office. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(H). 
9 
.
Matter ofJ- R-L- LLC 
We disagree with the Director 's specific reason tor concludin g that there is no qualifying 
relationship , but will affirm that the Petitioner has not established that the foreign entity would be a 
quali fying organization. The Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the 
Bene ficiary owns 90% of the foreign entity and is the Petitioner's sole owner, therefore establishing 
the requisite common ownership for an affiliate relationship. Moreov er, the Petitioner has 
established that the foreign entity has been 
doing business abroad in the years prece ding the filing of 
the petition. · 
However , the Petitioner has not established that the foreign entity is a qualifying organization that 
would continue to do busine ss abroad for the duration of the Beneficiar y's stay in L-1 8 
classification. As noted, the foreign entity , an IT consulting company , has no consulting employee s 
other than the Beneficiary . The Petitioner indicate s that the Benefici ary's spouse,
4 
the foreign 
entity 's minority owner , perform s administrative and support functions for the compan y. However , 
the record contains insufficient evidence to establish that she intends to or is able to continue 
operating the company in Ireland . 
At the lime of filing, the Beneficiary stated that his spouse and children would not be traveling to the 
United States with him and would remain in Ireland, where his spouse would continue to manage the 
busines s, advertise for new business , prepare sales and tax documentation , provide support to clients, 
and liaise with the Beneficiary regarding potential contracts so that he could hire staff for roies in 
Ireland. 
However, in response to the Rf E, the Beneficiary stated that he intended to move his family to the 
United States upon approval of the petition so that his son can attend a tennis academy in Florida , 
and that he has a lready selected the Florid a priv ate school his children will attend . On appeal, the 
Petitioner once again states that the BeneticiJiry 's spouse will remain in Ireland to work as 
"o perations manag er" after he transfers to th e United States . However , due to the inconsi stency in 
the submitted statements, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the foreign entity will 
con tinue to operate when the Beneficiary ((Ind. possibJy hjs spouse) is transferred to the United 
States. Acco rdingly, the Petitioner did not establish that the foreign entity is a qualifying 
organiza tion . 
Further, the record does not contain evidence that the Beneficiary 's services are to be used for a 
temp ora ry period and that he will be transfe rred to an assignment abroad upon the completion of the 
em ploym ent in the United State s. See 8 C.F. R; § 214.2(l)(3)(vii). For this additional reason, the 
petition cannot be approved. 
J The Petitioner refers to the Beneficiary's spouse as · · and states on appeal that the foreign entity's 
operations manager and sole other employer is '· ' U.S. Department of State records. pertaining to 
the Beneficiary's L-1 visa application confirm that he is in fact married to and that both names refer to the 
same person. 
·t 0 
..
Matter aj.f-R-L- LLC 
V. FTNA:--JCIAL ABILITY TO COMMENCE BUSINESS OPERA TrONS 
The final basis for denial was the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
foreign entity would be able to sustain the new office financially or that the Petitioner would have 
the financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United 
States. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(vi)(B). 
The Petitioner stated on the Form I-129 that the Beneficiary would receive a salary of $2250 per 
week or $117,000 annually. In a submitted business plan, the Petitioner indicated that the foreign 
entity would cover $10,200 in start-up costs from "company earnings." The Petitioner anticipated 
$90,000 in sales for the first year, and gross profit of $57,500, but did not include the Beneficiary's 
salary among its anticipated costs. As discussed above, the Petitioner anticipates that it will initially 
generate revenue by having the Benet1c1ary apply for and obtain fixed duratjon IT 
consulting /contractor jobs that require his skills. The Petitioner provided evidence that the foreign 
entity had transferred $9150 to a U.S. account owned by the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner submitted a lease for office space, but also provided a statement indicating that the 
Beneficiary would initially work from a home office in Florida, at a residential property 
he had purchased in 2{)05. 
In the RFE, the Director advised that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner 
has sufficient funding to commence business in the United States, and provided a list of documents 
the Petitioner could submit to show the U.S. and foreign entity's financial status. In response, the 
Petitioner stated that the foreign entity, had $170,500 available based on its sales income , cash on 
hand, available credit, and net proceeds from the sale of the Beneficiary's Florida 
property. 
In the denial decision, the Director emphasized that the record did not show that the foreign entity 
would continue to do business and therefore did not show how it would how it would help support 
the U.S. office. The Director also noted that the Petitioner did not submit evidence to corroborate 
the sales estimates provided in its business plan. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the foreign entity has made a sufficient investment in the U.S. 
entity, that it will continue to do business because the Beneficiary's spouse will remain in Ireland to 
operate it, and that the toreign entity has already been paying the Beneticiary a wage that is higher 
than that indicated on the Form 1-129. The Pet~tioner maintains that, because it will have its own 
revenue as it secures clients in the United States, ••the company's ability to pay the beneficiary 
cannot be called into question.'' 
We agree with the Director's finding that there is insufficient evidence to show that the Petitioner 
will have the financial ability to compensate the Beneficiary and commence operations in the United 
States. Initially, the Petitioner claimed it would receive an initial investment of $10,200 from the 
foreign entity's proceeds. This amount, combined with the Petitioner's projected first year sales, 
would not be sufficient to cover the Beneficiary.'s stated salary. Further, for the reasons addressed 
11 
Maller of J-R-L- LLC 
above, the Petitioner did not establish that the foreign entity would continue to earn revenue after the 
Beneficiary's transfer to the United States. The Director noted that the Petitioner's claim that it 
would earn $90,000 in revenue in the first year was also not adequately corroborated, a finding that 
the Petitioner has not addressed on appeal. Although the Petitioner has documented that the 
Beneficiary sold a residential property in the United States, the record does not contain evidence that 
the proceeds are available to the Petitioner to support its first year operating costs or to pay the 
Beneficiary's salary. 
Overall, the Petitioner's business plan, and the Petitioner's ability to commence operations and pay 
the Beneficiary's salary appear to be largely dependent on the Beneficiary's ability to secure 
contracts for his consulting services. We agree with the Director that the projected revenues for the 
initial year are both insufficient to pay the Beneficiary's salary, and not adequately supported in the 
record. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not met this requirement. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge, that the foreign entity would be doing business as a qualifying 
organization abroad for the duration of the Beneficiary's stay, or that the Petitioner has the financial 
ability to compensate the Beneliciary and commence business operations in the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as .Malter o( J-R-L- LLC, lD# 92876l(AA0 Mar. 13, 20 18) 
12