dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
MATTER OF 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 28,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology services provider, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a technical lead under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L) , 8 U.S.C. § 
110l(a)(l5)(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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he has 
been 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 the Beneficiary is the 
only employee of the foreign employer with knowledge of customizing its proprietary tool 
combined with knowledge of the development and implementation of this tool for its U.S. client. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 one continuous year within three years preceding -the Beneficiary' s application for admission into 
the United States. Section 10l(a)(l5)(L) ofthe 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 the beneficiary will be serving the United States employer in a managerial or executive capacity, a 
qualified beneficiary may be classified as an L-1 A nonimmigrant alien. If a qualified beneficiary 
will be rendering services in a capacity that involves "specialized knowledge," the beneficiary may be 
classified as an L-1 B nonimmigrant alien. !d. 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the statutory definition of 
specialized knowledge: 
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. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge as: 
[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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 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) ofthis 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. 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he has been employed abroad and will be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner stated that it is an affiliate of the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer, and that both companies specialize "in providing services and developing products for the 
operating system." The Petitioner stated that several 
multinational corporations, including and use the 
company's· products and services. The Petitioner explained that it develops "specific product 
software for mainframe applications which are used in mainframes across the world" and stated 
that "eighty percent of the world's installations use our products and debugging tools for their 
system and applications development." The Petitioner stated on the Form I-129 that it has gross 
revenue of $5.9 million and that it currently has 11 full-time employees. 
In a letter submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will act as 
a technical lead assigned to which has purchased a license to utilize the proprietary 
"products suite" The Petitioner explained that the position requires "specialized knowledge 
in and knowledge of infrastructure." The Petitioner stated that is a software 
tool that "allows the client programmer to analyze transaction flow, browse, edit, compile, create, 
build, link, unit test, analyze transaction performance, and browse databases" and that the 
tool "is a collection of sub-products that work together to form a comprehensive test management 
system." 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would customize for develop application 
software, and work with the development teams at the client's location in the United States 
and offshore in India. The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary is "only [one] of a few 
individuals that has specialized knowledge of software and infrastructure." The 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's "knowledge of the development of the product, training 
method, customization opportunities, and services to the level needed to perform the duties cannot 
be attained outside of [the company]." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would assist 
in "developing quality application software for their mission critical applications." 
I 
The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary "was part of a core team in India involved in 
product development and maintemince" and that "he was chosen because he had extensive 
knowledge of both and needed for the development process of the product." 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was involved with this "core team" for four years and that 
it "was crucial for the architectural design of The Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of development and his knowledge of the infrastructure 
leave him "uniquely qualified" to be assigned at the client's site in 
The Petitioner provided a list of the Beneficiary's proposed duties, as follows: 
• Assist in the customization of the 
requirements of 
3 
software to meet the business 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
• Review requirements and design to support the software's ideal 
performance. 
• Derive the maximum advantage of for by developing application 
software for credit card transactions. 
• Coordinate the installation of new releases of the software. 
• Work with development team at to develop functional design. 
• Provide 
training and support to users at 
• Monitor and resolve issues with at 
• Perform unit testing. Work with Qualify [sic 1 Assurance to create test plan 
and review with technical staff. 
• Work with rel~ase management resource to schedule implementation and 
post implementation support . 
. • Work with offshore development team to develop and code the technical 
design adhering to the development standards. 
• Coordinate and collaborate with offshore teams and act as liaison when need 
arises during any project activity. 
The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary has worked with as an offshore technical lead 
in Ipdia since June 2011 where he performs the same duties described above. The Petitioner 
submitted various agreements and statements of work as evidence of its performance of "application 
requirements analysis" and "application development and enhancement services" for various clients. 
The Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's resume reflecting that he had worked as a senior 
programmer/developer on four projects in India since July 2013 and had worked for the 
foreign entity since 2011. The Beneficiary stated that his duties for each r project, all of 
which involved ATM transactions, included "coding, unit testing & UAT support, and 
implementation" using Traditional Files, Mainframe Assembler, and tools such as 
SCM, ATM Message Simulator, and Dump Viewer. The resume reflected that prior to his 
assignment to the foreign entity had assigned the Beneficiary to various client companies to 
perform similar services for clients in the airline industry. He was previously employed by 
in India from July 2008 to May 2011, where he worked on projects for 
usmg technologies. 
The Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE). The Director asked the foreign employer to 
clarify the minimum time required to acquire the Beneficiary's level of knowledge. Further, the 
Director requested that the Petitioner provide other documentation to support the Beneficiary's 
asserted specialized knowledge, including evidence of his prior training, a comparison of his 
knowledge against other employees in the field, documentation demonstrating his development of 
specialized knowledge, correspondence, reports, patents, or contracts resulting from the Beneficiary 
work, and/or an organizational chart. The Director emphasized that the Petitioner should compare 
the Beneficiary's knowledge to that of similarly placed employees both within and outside of the 
company. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a support letter from the foreign entity's ,chief executive officer 
(CEO), who explained 
that the company "developed a system 
called 
[ ... ] that prevents credit card fraud by comparing the location of a given transaction with the 
location of a predetermined communication device." The CEO stated that the implementation of 
required "extensive and unique knowledge of our tool," which is "used within the 
system for program development and testing on transaction processing systems - such as ' He 
stated that the tool is "used by companies worldwide to develop ~md manage credit card 
transactions." 
The foreign employer explained that the Beneficiary "has been utilized as a key employee," stating 
the following with respect to his experience: 
[The Beneficiary's] experience and contributions are unique for two main reasons­
(1) he is one of twelve (12) employees in the entire company, both here and abroad, 
who has specialized knowledge of our unique tool suite; and (2) he is one of 
our employees with extensive experience working with our client 
The CEO also -~tated that the Beneficiary "is unique in his ability to utilize and implement [the 
tool," such that he was assigned to work with in July 2013 where he uses his 
specialized knowledge "to meet the software business requirements of A TM Application 
Development." He described the Beneficiary's duties as follows: 
[The Beneficiary] reviews requirements and designs to support the 
software's ideal performance. He derives the maximum advantage of for 
He provides training and support to users at the client site. He 
works with Software development team at the client site to develop functional 
designs. He works as a Technical Lead (internal title: Senior Programmer/Systems 
Engineer). [The Beneficiary] works on the ATM Project. 
In this role, [the Beneficiary] has gained direct specialized knowledge on most 
software proprietary software and products. [The Beneficiary's] duties with our 
Indian affiliate are at a much higher level since his knowledge and duties are 
specifically focused on the development and customization of Software's 
proprietary software suite for the project. 
The Petitioner indicated that the technical lead position in the United States with "is so 
complex and specialized, we cannot place just any employee in this position" noting that it "requires 
someone with unique and specialized knowledge of this software product, extensive prior 
experience, and inside training and experience specifically on the Software suite." 
In support of these assertions, the Petitioner provided a list of 1 7 employees, working for both the 
U.S. and Indian based affiliates, who hold "specialized knowledge of the development and 
customization of proprietary software." The list included the Beneficiary as technical lead 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
and employees holding the following titles: one other technical lead, an "assistant director- global 
delivery," a senior systems engineer, a project manager, five assistant systems engineers, a "director­
products," five "trainee-software engineer[s]," and a systems engineer. The Petitioner further 
submitted a list of all its employees with both the U.S. and Indian affiliates stating that "together the 
affiliates have 150+ employees." The list shows that 36 employees are assigned 
to work for 
The Petitioner submitted a statement of work executed with in December 2014 "for the 
development, maintenance, and implementation of Applications, and 
applications enhancements ." Paragraph 10 of the statement of work indicated the petitioning 
company would provide a total of 14 consultants, including seven "offshore" employees - an 
application architect with more than 14 years of experience, an application architect with more than 
8 years of experience, an application developer with more than 8 years of experience, an 
"application developer Sr" with 5-8 years of experience, an application .developer with 3-5 years of 
experience, an "application engineer Jr" with 1-3 years of experience, and an application trainee with 
less than one year of experience. Likewise, the statement of work further reflected that the foreign 
employer was to assign seven similarly experienced employees to the location, along with a 
project manager. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the evidence suggested that the Beneficiary's 
duties were similar to the duties of a typical software developer when compared to the Department 
of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH). The Director stated that the evidence did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge is significantly different from that held by similarly 
employed software developers in the Petitioner's industry. The Director emphasized that the 
evidence did not disclose or document the length of the Beneficiary's training. Finally, the Director 
found that the Petitioner did not adequately articulate the Beneficiary' s specialized knowledge and 
how it is typically gained in the organization. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary is one of only 12 employees, out of 80 total, 
that have specialized knowledge in customizing its proprietary tool. The Petitioner states 
that the Beneficiary was a member of a core team involved in developing and maintaining the 
tool for the last four years. The Petitioner further asserts that the Beneficiary is a key 
employee with unique knowledge of the tool and that he has extensive experience working 
with and customizing the product for this client. The Petitioner indicates that the 
Beneficiary was assigned to because of his specialized knowledge in July 2013 and that he is 
the only employee qualifie.d to perform the duties of his proposed technical lead position in the 
·United States. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge or that he has been employed abroad or 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). 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility. Matter of 
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove. by a preponderance of evidence 
that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
376 (AAO 2010). In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality. !d. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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. 
In order to establish eligibility, the petitioner must show that a given 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 cons.idered 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." 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." See also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). A petitioner may establish eligibility by 
submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the 
definition. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and 
type of evidence which establishes whether or not a beneficiary actually possesses specialized 
knowledge. USCIS cannot make a factual determination regarding the beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of 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 given 
beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneficiary's 
knowledge is "sp~cial" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's 
knowledge against that of others. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge, a petitioner 
ordinarily must demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the 
particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. The ultimate question 
is whether the petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that 
a given beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is advanced or special, and· that the beneficiary's 
position requires such knowledge. 
Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or 
services and its application in international markets, the Petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidence that the Beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to the 
knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular industry. "Advanced knowledge" 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
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. 
In the current matter, the Petitioner has made conflicting assertions regarding the Beneficiary's 
claimed specialized knowledge. For instance, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the foreign entity 
selected the Beneficiary to work for in July 2013 based on his advanced knowledge of the 
company's proprietary tool. However, in the same brief submitted on appeal, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary began working with in November 2008. Further, in a support 
letter provided with the petition, the Petitioner indicated that he began working with in June 
2011. The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary is one of only 12 employees with specialized 
knowledge in the tool out of 80 total employees with the company. However, in response to 
the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the company has 150 employees and submitted a list of 1 7 
employees claimed to have specialized knowledge of the development and customization of the 
proprietary tool. The Petitioner has not resolved these inconsistencies with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). 
In addition, the Petitioner provided little of the information and evidence requested by the Director 
in the RFE necessary to substantiate the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge. For instance, 
the Director requested that the Petitioner provide training, pay, personnel records or other additional 
documentary evidence to support that the Beneficiary acts in a specialized knowledge capacity 
abroad. The Petitioner did not submit any personnel or 
training documentation. The Director asked 
the Petitioner to clarify the minimum time required to acquire the Beneficiary's level of knowledge, 
but the Petitioner did not articulate the training requirements for the position. The Director 
requested that the Petitioner compare the Beneficiary's knowledge to that of similarly placed 
employees both within and outside of the company, but it did not provide any specific comparisons. 
Further, the Petitioner did not provide other requested documentation, such as correspondence, 
reports, or organizational charts for the foreign or U.S. company to substantiate the Beneficiary's 
level of knowledge. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry 
shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
Instead of submitting some of the probative evidence listed by the Director, the Petitioner states that 
the Beneficiary worked for a "core team" responsible for "crucial architectural design of 
However, the Petitioner submits no supporting evidence to corroborate that the Beneficiary was 
involved in this core team or this asserted design work. In fact, there is no indication in the 
Beneficiary's resume that he worked on a development team. Rather, his resume reflects 
that he joined the company with prior experience in technologies and immediately started 
working on client projects. While the resume indicates that the Beneficiary used the tool to 
perform his duties, none of the project descriptions suggest that he was involved in the development 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
or customization of the tool or that he was part of a core team that was responsible for the tool's 
development. Rather, it appears that the petitioning organization's employees were regularly using 
the tool in the performance of their duties at the time the Beneficiary joined the company and that he 
quickly learned to use it to carry out his software development duties in 
The Petitioner submits a list of 17 employees, including the Beneficiary, who are claimed to have 
specialized knowledge of but the list has limited probative value as the Petitioner does not 
explain how these employees gained this level of knowledge or how it compares to that possessed by 
their colleagues. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r 1998) (quoting Matter of Treasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). Given that the Petitioner licenses the product to multiple large clients and regularly 
assigns teams of its own employees to work on projects for these clients, it is unclear how the 
knowledge required to use and customize the tool to meet the clients' functional requirements would 
be limited to a small group of employees. Further, as discussed, the Petitioner has not explained the 
amount or type of training or experience necessary to be classified internally as an employee with 
specialized knowledge of 
We note that the Petitioner provided a statement of work indicating that a total of fourteen 
employees have been assigned to the same project as the Beneficiary and an employee list that 
indicates that 36 company employees, out of 80 to 150 total employees referenced by the Petitioner, 
are assigned to projects in general. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary works with a 
development team at the site. Further, the Petitioner submits evidence of several other 
contracts and statements of work with other clients who have licensed suggesting that the 
Petitioner's employees perform the same or similar type of work at various other client locations. 
However, at no point does the Petitioner articulate how the knowledge of the Beneficiary and other 
colleagues assigned to differs from other employees applying this technology for other 
clients. Without this level of specificity, the Petitioner has not corroborated that the Beneficiary is 
the "only" employee capable of fulfilling the technical lead role in the United States. Indeed, the 
evidence provided by the Petitioner appears to suggest otherwise, reflecting that five "trainee­
software engineers" hold specialized knowledge of the proprietary tool, suggesting that 
garnering specialized knowledge of this tool does not require a great deal of time or experience. The 
Petitioner does not resolve this ambiguity by indicating how long it takes to reach the Beneficiary's 
level of knowledge, by documenting any training he received in or by specifically 
comparing the Beneficiary with his colleagues to set him apart. It is not clear why knowledge of the 
tool would be exclusive to the Beneficiary when it is offered as a tool used to deal with 
quality issues, and therefore, it would reasonably follow that other software professionals in the 
company would use this tool when working with 
Although the tool may be proprietary, the fact that knowledge is proprietary does not 
demonstrate that knowledge of it is inherently special or advanced. The Petitioner provides little 
evidence to indicate that the Beneficiary's knowledge could not be readily learned by another 
software developer already well-versed in product. In fact, the Petitioner suggests 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
that this is the case, indicating that trainee level employees already have special and advanced 
knowledge of the tool despite a short time on the job and the evidence reflects that the Beneficiary 
began work using this tool at client locations soon after he commenced employment with the foreign 
entity. Further, the Petitioner has provided no comparisons of the company's tool to that which may 
have been developed by similarly placed company's using In fact, the Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary works with own development teams, indicating that their software 
professionals may have similar knowledge to that of the Beneficiary. Therefore, in sum, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that another similarly placed software developer with knowledge~of 
could not learn how to use the company's proprietary tool in a relatively 
short period of time. As noted, the Petitioner does not clarify this by articulating how long it would 
take for another similar professional to gain the Beneficiary's level of knowledge. 
Again, it is not sufficient to merely state that a beneficiary holds proprietary knowledge and specific 
knowledge of a client. A petitioner must substantiate that the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon 
when compared to others in the industry or that his or her expertise in the organization's processes 
and procedures that is greatly developed beyond that held by his colleagues in the org<;lnization. 
Here, the Petitioner has submitted little evidence beyond its assertions to corroborate the 
Beneficiary's specialized knowledge. In fact, the Petitioner provided conflicting evidence as to the 
Beneficiary's experience and other evidence suggesting that his knowledge is not greatly developed 
beyond that of his colleagues. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge and that he has been and will be employed in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reason. 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; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, 
the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of ID# 8121 (AAO Sept. 28, 2016) 
10