dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-M-(A-) INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 28, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an infonnation technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
tech lead under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(I5)(L), 8 U.S.C. ~ 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
L-1 B 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and 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 it has met all 
requirements and that the Director erred by imposing additional criteria beyond the statute and 
regulations. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the 
criteria outlined in section 1 01 ( a)(IS)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a position 
involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year within the three years preceding the 
beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek 
to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate. 
The statute defines specialized knowledge as a special knowledge of the company product and its 
application in international markets or an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of 
the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. ~ 1184(c)(2)(B). Our regulations define 
specialized knowledge as: 
.
Matter ofT-M~(A-) Inc. 
[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 ofknowledge or expe1iise in 
the organization's processes and procedures. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(D). 
An individual L-lB petition tiled on Form I-129 , Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, must include 
evidence that the beneficiary's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge, evidence that the beneficiary's prior 
education, training and employment qualities him or her to perform the intended services in the 
United States, and a detailed description of the services to be performed in a specialized knowledge 
capacity in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. EMPLOYMENT lN A POSITION INVOLVING SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge 
and whether he has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the 
United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
A. The Beneficiary's Employment Abroad 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish .that the Beneficiary worked abroad in a 
position that involved specialized knowledge for at least one continuous year within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii) and (iv). 
The record shows that the Petitioner's foreign subsidiary hired the Beneficiary as a tech lead in 
February 2015, approximately 18 months prior to tiling the petition. The Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary "has vast IT experience and has spent time using the and 
projects." The Petitioner added that "[t]he beneficiary is an expert at using 
the application." The Petitioner described as "a highly sophisticated Microsoft tool that 
allows queries to multiple databases," and then went on to describe as ' 
framework." 
An official of the parent company stated that the Beneficiary "played a role of Tech Lead in various 
projects involving He has very good command on 
Oracle SQL, and other Tools related to and 
E-Commerce." The official indicated that the Beneticiary had completed four training programs: 
Internal Security Cetiificate 
eCommerce 10 I 
8 hrs. 
40 hrs. 
40 hrs. 
40 hrs. 
2 
03/0 l/2015 
04/27/2015-05/01 /2015 
09/07/2015-09 / ll /2015 
10/05/2015-1 0/09/2015 
.
----- - ------- ---- -------···--·--------··----- ---
Matter ofT-M-(A-} Inc. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), asking for documentary evidence to show that the 
Beneficiary's foreign position 'required specialized knowledge. In response, the Petitioner listed the 
Beneficiary's five main duties abroad, and stated that each of these duties required specialized 
knowledge ofthe company's tool. 
A letter from the Petitioner's human resources department states that, since February 25, 2015 , the 
Beneficiary worked on four projects , all for the same client: . 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The above list indicates that the use of was part ofone project , rather than an intrinsic part of 
all of the Beneficiary's work tor the foreign company. The Petitioner did not claim that the other 
three projects involved or required specialized knowledge. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that, when the foreign company hired the Beneficiary, the 
Beneficiary "immediately performed the duties of Tech Lead without any prior experience or 
training on the company's software application or projects." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that "the beneficiary has received 40 hours of training and has used 
the tool extensively for over one ( l) year prior to the tiling of this petition.'· The record , 
however , shows that the Beneficiary received his training in the tool in October 2015 , l 0 
months before the Petitioner filed the petition in August 2016. There is no evidence in the record 
·that the Beneficiary used or had any specialized knowledge relating to its use, before he 
received that training. Three of the Beneficiary's tour projects abroad did not have an identified 
component. 
A graphic in the Petitioner's RFE response letter described as a four-part ''Automation 
Framework," including ' for which "Phase I started in Dec-2015 ." Thi s 
information in the record suggests that the Petitioner did not roll out until December 2015, and 
that the Beneficiary 's October 2015 training was part of the initial company-wide training in a new, 
soon-to-be-introduced framework. The record contains no documentary evidence to show that the 
company, or the Beneficiary, used before December 2015. 
The above information indicates "that the Beneficiary did not require any knowledge of to 
qualify for employment as a tech lead. The Petitioner , on appeal, states that the Beneficiary did not 
begin his employment with that knowledge, but rather had to acquire it while working for the foreign 
company. Even if that knowledge became a requirement during the Beneficiary 's employment , the 
Petitioner tiled the Form 1-129 petition only about 10 months after the Beneficiary completed his 
trammg in so we cannot determine that he was employed in a position that involved the 
claimed specialized knowledge for a full year prior to the tiling of the petition. This information is 
.
Matter o[T~M-(A-) Inc. 
disqualifying by itself, even before we consider the separate question (addressed below) of whether 
knowledge of constitutes specialized knowledge. 
B. The Beneficiary's Possession of Specialized Knowledge 
The petition must include evidence that the beneficiary's prior education , training and employment 
qualify him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(iv). Below, we discuss the Director ' s finding that the Petitioner had not established 
that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. The Petitioner asserts, on appeal, that is 
proprietary and so the Beneficiary's knowledge of "should be recognized as a black letter 
definition of the L-1 b category." We disagree with the Petitioner, and will dismiss the appeal for the 
following reasons. 
A petitioner must establish that it meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter (?lChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) . In 
other words , a petitioner must show that what it claims is '' more likely than nor· or "probably " true. 
To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under the preponderance standard, we consider 
not only the quantity , but also the quality (including relevance. probative value. and credibility) of 
the evidence. !d. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 J&N Dec. 77. 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
A petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition. Under the statute, a beneficiary is deemed to 
have specialized knowledge if he or she has: (I) a "special" knowledge of the company product and 
its application in international markets ; or (2) an "advanced" level of knowledge of the processes 
and procedures ofthe company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act. 
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 speciali zed 
knowledge. We cannot make a factual determination regarding a beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum , articulate with speciticity the nature of the its 
products and services or processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field 
involved , and the nature of the beneticiary 's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how 
such knowledge is typically gained within the organization , and explain how and \.vhen the 
beneticiary gained such knowledge. 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneticiary'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 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 the beneticiary's knowledge or expertise is advanced or special , and that the 
beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 
4 
.
Matter ofT-M-(A~) Inc. 
One of the Beneficiary's stated responsibilities is "[r]equirements gathering and analysis, high level 
design, development and deployment of application enhancements." As discussed above, the 
Petitioner's specialized knowledge claim centers on the Beneficiary's use of the tool. At 
various times in this proceeding, the Petitioner has asserted that the Beneficiary's kno\vledge of 
is both special kno\vledge and advanced knowledge. 
l. Special Knowledge 
Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the employing organization's products or 
services and its application in international markets, a petitioner may meet its burden of proof 
through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to 
the knowledge held by similarly employed workers in the particular industry. 
First, we must determine what is. The weight and type of evidence establishes whether or not 
a given 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 knO\vledge is typically gained within the 
organization, and explain how and when the individual beneficiary gained such knmvledge. 
The Petitioner has described as a "tool;' an "application," and a ''framework." The Petitioner 
initially stated: "The application is a highly sophisticated Microsoft tool that allows queries to 
multiple databases." The Petitioner's background documentation about does not discuss 
database queries, and indicates that is proprietary to the Petitioner and its affiliates rather than 
a "Microsoft tool." It appears the preparer of this letter may have confused 
with Microsoft's \:vhich shares the initials' " 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), stating that the Petitioner had not shown that a "40 
hour training [course] is sufficient to provide specialized knowledge that others do not possess." 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner had listed various computer programs that the 
Beneficiary uses, but found that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary's proficiency 
in those areas rises to the level of specialized knowledge. 
In response, the Petitioner stated: 
The framework is pov,·ered by technologies 
based on Robotic Process Automation (RPA) and Artificial Intelligence (AI). There 
are several systems involve.[d] in [the client's] current ... architecture. Each system 
has [its] own way of functioning/working. This Tool helps the system to come 
closer and resolve the problem occurring by one system to another system .... 
5 
.
Matter ofT-M-(A-) Inc. 
A graphic refers to as an "Automation Framework" consisting of four elements: 
• Center for Automation Technologies Team, which ·'Owns automation strategy and 
enablement across service-lines"; 
• Toolkit , comprising "15+ in-house automation platforms" and "tools for 
implementing automation across all service lines," "Based on Open-source and partner 
solutions" ; 
• Automation Thinking, which concerns "Behavioral Change management" and a "Process 
framework for implementation," with a goal of "25% ~ertitication during this [fiscal year]"; 
and 
• a "Program to adopt automation across all ongoing deliveries.'' 
The Petitioner also stated: 
The Toolkit, titled is a suite of tools and delivery accelerators. It 
comprises CUBES for Infrastructure and Application maintenance and operations, 
UNO for Robotic Process Automation , and TACTiX as Artificial Intelligence­
powered Knowledge Engine. The [client's] projects that have adopted the 
framework, we have been able to increase process efticiency and associated benefits 
from 
The above information shows that is not a process or product in its own right, but rather the 
collective name for a combination of different software packages , strategies , and practices. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that, while "the [B]eneticiary has a wide range of skills , 
experience, and training with various software programs," the Petitioner had not provided a specific 
enough description of the claimed specialized knowledge. The Director also stated that "[m]any 
companies will have developed their own software applications," and that familiarity with these in­
house products does not automatically demonstrate specialized knowledge. The Director found that 
the Petitioner had not shown that the Beneficiary's knowledge or experience is "significantly 
different from that possessed by similarly employed workers in the same industry ." 
On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's knowledge of 
illustrative criteria spelled out in a 2015 policy memorandum: 1 
meets several of the 
The beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity involving assignments that 
have significantly enhanced the employer's productivity, competitiveness, image, or 
financial position. 
1 
USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-IB Adjudi cations Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/ 
poI icy-memoranda. 
6 
.
Matter ofT-M-(A-) Inc. 
The beneficiary has been successfully utilizing the tool on projects abroadfhr 
over one (I) year with the same U.S. employer. The successfitl completion olprofects 
overseas has provided the opportunity fhr the petitioner to do 1-vork fhr the US 
customer in the U.S. 
The beneticiary's claimed specialized knowledge normally can be gained only 
through prior experience with the petitioning organization. 
Knowledge (~f the proprietary tool cannot be gained outside o{the petitioner. 
The beneficiary possesses knowledge of a product or process that cannot be easily 
transferred or taught to another individual without significant economic cost or 
inconvenience (because, for example , such knowledge may require substantial 
training , work experience, or education). 
The beneficimy underwent 40 hours o{training and has over one and a hal{years ol 
experience with the tool. This ·would require a similar mnount ol training and 
experience to replicate the beneficiary 's knowledge. 
The beneficiary possesses knowledge that is particularly beneficial to the petitioning 
organization's competitiveness in the marketplace. 
The failure q{the petifioner to provide employees with the proper knmvledge tofidfil/ 
its U.S. customer 's requirements puts it at a competitive disadvantage in the U.S. 
marketplace. 
The record refutes the first and third responses above. The Beneficiary has over a year of experience 
with the foreign employer, but half of that experience occurred before he received training. 
Regarding the Petitioner's second assertion, is proprietary to the petitioning company and its 
affiliates, but this does not necessarily mean that a vvorking knowledge of constitutes 
specialized knowledge for purposes of L-1 B eligibility. As the Director noted in the decision , if 
"specialized knowledge" simply meant "knowledge specitic to a particular employer ," most or all 
workers would have specialized knowledge. The Petitioner may be the only U.S. company that 
gives the name to a particular combination of software and practices, but the Petitioner has not 
shown how it is substantively different from procedures and protocols at other companies intended 
to produce similar results, and thus, how the claimed proprietary knowledge is distinct or uncommon 
in comparison to knowledge generally held by others working in the Petitioner's industry. The 
Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter o( 
ChaH,athe, 25 l&N Dec . at 376. 
The Petitioner ' s fourth assertion above is essentially a rephrasing of the preceding sentence tl'om the 
policy memorandum. While the Beneficiary's work with may be beneficial to the Petitioner's 
.
Matter (?f'T-M-(A-) Inc. 
competlttveness in the marketplace, this characteristic alone does not establish specialized 
knowledge. As noted in the memorandum, the "characteristics'' listed by the Petitioner are only 
"factors that users may consider when determining whether a beneficiary's knowledge is 
specialized" and such factors must be supported by evidence. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-
0 111, supra, at 8. The memorandum emphasizes that "ultimately, it is the weight and type of 
evidence that establishes whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge." Supra. at 13. 
In this instance, may be a significant part of the Petitioner's work for its client, but the 
Petitioner has not shown that proficiency in requires more than the week of training that the 
Beneficiary received. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's working knowledge of 
special knowledge as the regulations define that term. 
2. Advanced Knowledge 
constitutes 
Initially, the Petitioner also claimed that "[t]he beneficiary meets the advanced knowledge standard 
in several ways," such as being "the Subject Matter Expert in 
framework." In later submissions, the Petitioner has not pursued this claim. 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 vvorkers 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 has not shown that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of or other company processes and procedures exceeds that of others 
in the employer's operations. The Beneficiary worked for the Petitioner for less than 18 months 
before the petition's filing date, and nearly half of that time was before he had training in 
The Petitioner also asserted that the Beneficiary gained advanced knowledge through his past work 
for the same client. The Petitioner did not elaborate on this element of the claim and did not provide 
a detailed description of his assignments with this client. Familiarity with the client's e-commerce 
systems is not automatically or inherently advanced knowledge. The only element of the 
Beneficiary's advanced knowledge that the Petitioner has consistently emphasized is the 
Beneficiary's use of 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated: "[t]he Beneficiary's specialized knowledge of 
petitioner's proprietary tool ... meets the advanced knowledge standard in the following 
ways:" 
l. The beneficiary has over 1 year of expenence utilizing said specialized 
knowledge[.] 
8 
.
Maller ofT-M-(A-) Inc. 
2. Comparing the beneficiary's knowledge against that of others reveals that the 
knowledge required to perform the beneficiary's job duties is beyond the 
elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. 
3. The beneficiary has significant client interaction. 
4. The beneficiary's designation of"Lead"' signals 
an advanced role[ .] 
As described above , to gain the same level of expertise and understanding as the 
beneficiary a successful candidate would require over a year of experience utilizing 
the petitioner's proprietary methodology and solution. 
As shmvn above, the Beneficiary's documented experience \vith was less than a year at the 
time of filing, and the Petitioner has provided no basis for comparison to show· that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge exceeds that of others similarly employed. Also, the Bendiciary has held the title of 
"Tech Lead" since his tirst day on the job at the foreign company, and therefore that designation 
does not establish or imply an advanced level of knowledge of the Petitioner's products , services, 
processes, or procedures. Similarly, the fact that the tech lead position involves more extensive 
client interaction than lower level technical positions does not establish that the position requires 
advanced 
knowledge of company processes or procedures not possessed by other similarly employed 
workers, 
The Director, in denying the petitiOn. found that the Petitioner had not established that the 
Beneficiary has advanced knowledge, or "adequately described how such knowledge is typically 
gained within the organization." The Director acknowledged that the Beneiiciary has job-specific 
skills , but found that the Petitioner had not shown that the Beneticiary ' s knowledge is significantly 
different from that of others in the industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not directly address the issue of advanced knowledge, asserting 
generally that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. The Petitioner contends that the 
Beneficiary's skills are difficult to replace because any replacement '"''ould need to have as much 
experience as the Beneticiary has. Apart from the ov~rstatement of the Beneficiary's experience 
with the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's months of experience with have 
. imparted a hard-to-replace ]eve! of expertise. As noted , the Beneficiary's formal training in 
consisted of a one-week training course and knowledge that can be easily imparted to an employee 
does not qualify as special or advanced. In addition , the background intormation the Petitioner 
provided on its framework suggests that it is being implemented company-wide, both 
internally and in client projects. The Petitioner has not provided information that would allow us to 
compare the Beneficiary to other company employee~ involved in similar implementations tor 
its clients. 
The Petitioner has not shown how the Beneficiary's knowledge of specific processes and procedures 
is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity and understanding that 
that generally 
found within the employer. The Petitioner stt;esses that the Beneficiary has more than one year of 
experience at the foreign company, but the record offers no credible supp011 for the Petitioner's 
9 
.
Malter ofT-M-(A-) Inc. 
repeated c;laim that the Beneficiary has more than a year's experience with it is not evident 
that existed for a year before the petition's tiling date; and appears to be essentially a 
combination of existing programs and practices rather than a distinct entity in its own right. 
The Petitioner has not shown that the. Beneficiary ' s 40 hours of training and ten months of 
experience with resulted in his possession of advanced knowledge. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner ' s assertion that it has established eligibility according to criteria 
specified in USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-60 l-Oll, supra. 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. The memorandum highlights that "ultimately, it is the 
weight and type of evidence that establishes whether the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge.'' Supra. at 10. Further, while the memorandum provides that a petitioner's statement 
alone may be persuasive evidence of specialized knowledge in some circumstances "if it is detailed, 
specific and credible ," it also states that "the petitioner is required in all cases to compare the 
beneficiary ' s knowledge to that of others. " S'upra. at 11-12. Here , the Petitioner has put forward 
some questionable assertions , such as identifying as a Microsoft tool and claiming that the 
Beneficiary has more than a year of experience with when -the chronology of his training 
proves otherwise. The Petitioner's statements do not contain sufficiently detailed information 
regarding the nature of the specialized knowledge, nor do they contain the information needed to 
allow for comparisons between the Beneficiary ' s knowledge and that possessed by others within the 
company and in the industry. 
Because the Beneficiary ' s knowledge of is the focus of the Petitioner ' s specialized knowledge 
claim, we also find that the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's intended employment in 
the United States requires specialized knowledge as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, or 
that he has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the United States, in a specialized 
knowledge capacity . 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter (~lT-M-(A-) Inc., ID# 240191 (AAO Mar. 28, 2017) 
10