dismissed L-1B Case: It Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R- CORP. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 13.2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-129. PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner. a software development and consulting company. seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its "Principal Engineer'" under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section I 0 I (a)( 15 )(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 Petitioner did not 
establish. as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial. executive. or 
specialized knowledge capacity or that he would be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in 
the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the denial asserting that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and 
would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. The Petitioner offers 
evidence to support the contention that the Beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly found within 
the IT industry. 
Upon de novo review. we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish 
that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he has been and would be employed 
in a specialized knowledge capacity. Therefore. 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,'' for 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 
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 specialized knowledge capacity. !d. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education. training. and employment qualities him or 
her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
.
Maller of R- Corp. 
A beneficiary is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to 
a company if the beneficiary 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. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1 I 84(c)(2)(B). 
Specialized knowledge is defined as 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 processe s and procedures. 8 C.F.R. § 2 I 4.2(1)(1 )(ii)(D). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is an IT consulting organization that works with pharmaceutical companies in helping 
them monitor drug safety and install protocols to ensure global regulatory compliance. The 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been and is currently employed abroad as a "Principal 
Engineer" and leader of a team of IT professionals working on the development of proprietary 
software to be used by client companies in the pharmaceutical industry. The Petitioner discussed the 
Beneficiary· s prior work experience and pointed out that he was directly involved in gathering the 
requirements for proprietar y product s - and -which he later helped to 
develop and validate in his current position with the foreign entity. The Petitioner also stated that 
the Beneficiary assumed an active role in automating the testing of the proprietary products as a 
result of his experience in automation techniques and claimed that he provides customer support as 
the lead in "Managed Services ." The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has speci alized 
knowledge of "other software '' and is therefore able to help integrate multiple software app lications. 
In addition to these responsibilities. the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary conducts workshops 
and trainings on various proprietary products and applications and serves as a mentor for the ' 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's knowledge is critical to the 
company's "growth and market penetration. " 
TIL SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiar y possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the 
United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. [f the evidence is insufficient to establish that 
the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that he has been 
employed abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
A bendiciary 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 "adva nced " leve l of 
knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company . Section 214( c)(2)( B) of the Act. A 
petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition . 
2 
.
Matter of R- Corp. 
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. 
In the denial decision, the Director found that the record lacked evidence to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's foreign and proposed positions require either special knowledge of the company's 
products that is uncommon in the industry and could not be easily transferred, or an advanced level 
of knowledge or expertise ofthe organization's processes and procedures. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary possesses special knowledge and has been 
"heavily involved in the design and development" of two proprietary sot1ware products . The 
Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's skillset and knowledge are not commonly found within the 
pharmaceutical software industry. 
We find that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that 
the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. Although the Petitioner provided evidence to show that the 
Beneficiary has many 
years of experience in the pharmaceutical software industry and is therefore an 
asset to his current and proposed employers, it has not established that the Beneficiary has 
specialized knowledge or explained how he gained knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. 
A. Special Knowledge 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has "special"' knowledge of its proprietary softwa re 
products because he helped to develop the software and was later instrumental in creating the 
strategies for testing the finish ed product. As evidence of the Beneficiary's claimed "special'" 
knowledge. the Petitioner point s to his role as author of a training and user manual for 
and and states that the Beneficiary possesses the following four key skills that it claims are 
uncommon within the industry : ( 1) Oracle Argus Safety: (2) - the Petitioner 's 
proprietary products; (3) technical languages. like PLISQL ; and ( 4) an understanding of 
"Pharmacovigilance/Drug Safety domain from business perspective:· The Petitioner does not 
explain 
what is "special"' about the Beneficiary's knowledge of its proprietary software product suite 
or state how his knowledge of the proprietary product is ditlerent when compared to the knowledge 
others possess with regard to similarly used products within the industry . 
Because "special knowledge '' concerns knowledge of the employing organization's product s or 
services and its application in international markets , a petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to the 
.
Malter of R- Corp. 
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 specialized. 
In the present matter , the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's resume containing a list of his prior 
employers, a summary of his professional experience in the IT industry , and a list of technical skills 
he has developed over the course of his IT career. The resume indicate s that the Beneficiary has 
"functional expertise"' in various applications and proprietary products, but does not list any 
employer-specific training to explain how the Beneficiary acquired such "expertise." The resume 
also indicates that the Beneficiary assumed the position of "principal consultant" since commencing 
his employment with the foreign entity. The Petitioner does not identif y the steps taken to gain the 
"special knowledge " it claims the Beneficiary 
possesses. nor does the Beneficiary's resume indicate 
that any specific training or employment experience led him to acquire such knowledge. Although 
the Petitioner also claimed that the Beneficiary has "a Post Graduate diploma in Advance SoJtware 
Design and Development," it did not provide evidence that the Beneficiary obtained more than a 
four-year degree in computer science or that an advanced degree was necessary either tor the current 
or the proposed position . The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant probative. and 
credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369. 376 (AAO 20 1 0). 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director inform ed the Petitioner that the record lacked sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge is '·special'' and that it is different from 
the knowledge possessed by individuals in similar positions within the same industr y. The Director 
identified several factor s that we consider in order to determine whether a beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge, including, for instance, the minimum time in training and work experience 
that is required to obtain the knowledg e that the Benefi ciary is claimed to possess , a comparison of 
the Beneficiary's knowledge and the knowledge possessed by others who are similarly employed 
within the industry, and evidence of the Beneficiary's prior education , training and emplo yment 
along with an explanation of how these elements relate to the Beneficiary's claimed spec ialized 
knowledge . 
In response, the Petition er provided a letter from the foreign entity 's safety solutions director , 
describing the Beneficiary's roles, responsibilities, and contributions to the 
company's operations. stated that the Benefic iary '·has been instrument al in the design 
and development of [the company's] drug safety and pharmacovigilance products and services .'' He 
noted that the Beneficiary gained experience with another emp loyer - Oracle - where he worked 
"with similar products," and discussed the Beneficiary's current invo lvement "in the analysis, design 
and development" of the foreign emp loyer's "newest tool." discussed the intended 
purpose of the proprietary tool and stated that the Beneficiary was "a key element" in term s of his 
contributions toward s the tool's creation. He further noted that the Beneficiary was involved in 
preparin g the "co nfiguration and validation strateg y"' to test the tool prior to its release , creating 
custom reports through the use of various report ing tools , and trouble shooti ng issues assoc iated with 
the use ofthe foreign entity's various products and services in drug safe ty. stated that the 
4 
.
Maller (?fR- Corp. 
Beneficiary has conducted workshops and trainings regarding his employer's proprietary software 
and again referred to the Beneficiary's role as mentor of the " 
The Petitioner also provided training attendance sheets showing that the Beneficiary participated in 
10 training sessions, which included a six-hour consulting workshop, a training in .. business 
processes'' with an unknown duration, and two self-training sessions in "Basic Terminologies and 
Concepts" and ' " also with no known duration. Four of the training courses 
covered content based on the Argus database, which was listed in the Beneficiary 's resume among 
his "Expertise Highlights ." The training totaled 8 V2 hours and was spread out into four training 
sessions- two in 2015 and two in 2016. There is no evidence that such training was followed by an 
oral or written knowledge check to determine the Beneficiar y's success in grasping the material in 
which he was trained. Further, the Petitioner did not establish a nexus between any of the 
Beneficiary's training and the "special'' knowledge he is claimed to possess. 
In addition. the Petitioner provided a curriculum for '' · which 
appears to relate 
to the proprietary software that the Beneficiary helped to develop. The curriculum consists of a 
printed manual, which contains an overview and more in-depth material related to the •· 
The Petitioner did not provide additional documents revealing the date and duration 
for this training ; nor does the record indicate that the Beneficiary was among those who took the 
training. Further, even if the Petitioner were to provide evidence confirming that the Beneficiary 
attended the training described in the curriculum , it is unclear whether the training was open to a 
large pool of employees or, alternatively, whether it was made available only to employees who met 
specific criteria associated with a certain level of knowledge . Even if the Beneficiary had taken the 
training in ' it is unclear whether or how this training resulted in the 
Beneficiary acquiring "special" knowledge or that the training was part of a set protocol in a path to 
gaining the "special" knowledge that the Beneficiary is claimed to possess . The record did not show 
that the Beneficiary was offered certain training as a path to gaining specialized knowledge of the 
company's product or service or that such training was uncommon among employees like the 
Beneficiary within the industry. 
In the denial decision, the Director stated that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiarv 
J 
performed duties that are significantly different from those of other employees in similar positions. 
The Directordetermined that the Beneficiary has experience using the foreign entity's software to 
assist its clients , but found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 's knowledge is 
special in comparison to that of others within the same organization or industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has been "heavily involved in" the design and 
development of two proprietary software products and offers a design document naming the 
Benetlciary as a co-author. We find, however, that this document does not establish that "specia l'' 
knowledge was required to be a co-author of the ' manual. In fact . the 
Petit!~ner_ did not specify the basic level of knowledge required to be a co-author of this design 
specificatiOn manual or establish precisely how the Beneficiar y obtained the necessar y knowl edge in 
the relevant subject matter. While the Beneficiar y's training record shows that he took a .. 
.
Matter (~f R- Corp. 
' course in 2017, the duration of the session was not specified and the course name 
indicates that it was entry-level. Thus, it is unlikely that this single course provided the Beneficiary 
with adequate knowledge to co-author a 47-pagc instruction manual. Further. the depth of the 
Beneficiary's specific contribution is unclear and the Petitioner did not explain or provide evidence 
to show how and when the Beneficiary obtained sufficient knowledge to contribute valuable content 
to a software application manual when the record indicates that the Beneficiary ' s only training 
exposure to that software was through an introductory course. whose duration and content were not 
specified. 
As previously noted , a key element that factors into our determination of whether the Beneficiary 
has "special " knowledge is establishing precisely how and when the Beneficiary obtained the 
knowledge that is claimed to be "special. " As stated above , the Petitioner does not describe a path to 
or provide a particular protocol for acquiring the "special " knowledge that the Beneficiary is claimed 
to possess. Co-authoring a manual may. in certain instances , establish that a beneficiary already has 
specialized knowledge; it is not, however. sufficient for the purpose of establishing precisely how 
that knowledge was obtained . Even if the above described manual was deemed an indicator that the 
Beneficiary had acquired "special'' knowledge of the Petitioner's products, it is unclear precisely 
how or when that knowledge was acquired . Despite providing a list of in-house training sessions 
that the Beneficiary attended , the Petitioner did not establish a causal relationship between the 
intermittent training and the Beneficiary 's claimed ·'special" knowledge . 
Further , as discussed above , the Beneficiary's training history is not sutlicient to establish that the 
Beneficiary gained specialized knowledge through formal classroom training, as the training was 
sporadic and often included general subject matter , such as "Business Processes ." "Basic 
Terminologies and Concepts," a consulting workshop , and a course about the contents ofTitle 21 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations. While the Beneficiary's training history shows that he participated 
in four courses that focused on the ''Argus" drug safety software. their combined duration totaled 
only 8 '12 hours and the courses were spread out over a period of nearly 18 months, with two courses 
in April and September 2015 and two more in June and September 2016 . The record does not show 
that the Beneficiary underwent a concentrated period of training during which sufficient knowledge 
transfer took place so that he can be deemed as having gained '·special' ' knowledge of the foreign 
entity ' s products or services through formal training. 
The record is equally incomplete in drawing a connection between the Beneficiary's claimed 
''special" knowledge and his work experience with the Petitioner
' s foreign subsidiary . On appeal, 
the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "has authored training and user manuals,•· contending that 
this is indicative that the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge "is specific to the Petitioner." 
However, we point to the above described statement from in which he expressly stated 
that the Beneficiary worked ''with similar products·· during his employment with Oracle. Likewise, 
on appeal. the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "worked at Oracle in the Argus Safety team" 
prior to starting his employment with the Petitioner's foreign subsidiary in 2014. and 
the Petitioner's statements indicate that the Beneficiary gained exposure to the Argus-ba sed products 
prior to his current employment with the Petitioner's foreign subsidiar y, where he now works with a 
.
Malter ofR- Corp. 
similar product line. While the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's current employer "does not use 
common Oracle's Argus product hne and PL/SQL Scripts;· it does not provide sufficient evidence to 
support the claim that the products the Beneficiary is currently using require "special"' knowledge 
that the Beneficiary gained in the course of his current employment with the Petitioner 's foreign 
subsidiary. Specifically, the Petitioner offers a project plan that contains milestones for a client 
project and uses technical terminology to describe the actions that took place during the course of the 
project. The Petitioner also offers a product manual that includes diagrams and technical 
information about the ' ' However , neither the project plan nor the 
manual offers a layman 's interpretation of the technical software spec ifications that would allow for 
a meaningful understanding of the difference(s) between the foreign entity's software products and 
those used by similar organizations within the industry. 
Further, the Petitioner does not identify the Beneficiary ' s specific role and contributions with respect 
to the project and manual, or explain how either the project or the manual demonstrates that the 
foreign entity"s use of the Argus product line is different from the '·common" industry use of that 
product. In other words, the Petitioner does not clarify how , if at all, the Argus software that the 
Beneficiary currently works with is more complex than the software he worked with in his fonner 
position with another employer. Given this lack of a distinction between the Beneficiar y"s former 
and current positions , it is reasonable to question whether there is a link between the Beneficiary's 
current employer and the "special " knowledge he is claimed to have gained while working for that 
employer. The fact that the Beneficiary worked with similar product s during his prior employment 
indicates that the products he is currently working with are not uncommon within the IT industry; 
this undermines the claim that the Beneticiary's knowledg e of his current employer's specific 
product is "special'' or that it was gained during his employment with that employer. 
We also note that determining whether a beneficiary's knowledge is "special'' require s a comparison 
of that knowledge to the knowledge of others who hold comparable positions in the Petitioner 's 
industry. The Petitioner bears the burden of showing that the Beneficiary holds knowledge that is 
noteworthy or uncommon compared to his colleagues outside the organization. Here, the Petitioner 
seeks to establish that the Beneficiary' s skillset is uncommon among similarly employed individuals 
within the industry by relying on information gathered on a social media website where 
members contribute profess iona l information about themselves and use the site as a profe ssional 
networking tool. However , the information found on is not verifiable and there is no 
evidence that represents the entire population of IT employees in the pharmaceutical 
industry . Further , the Petitioner did not expressly compare the Beneficiary's duties to those of other 
IT professionals at similar organizations, nor did it establish that developing and customizing 
software within the context of the foreign entity is different from and require s knowledg e that is 
"special" as compared to similarly employed individuals within the same industry . 
In sum, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses knowledge that is special. While we do not dispute that the Beneficiar y may be filling a 
role that is beneficial to the Petitioner· s competitiveness in the marketplace. this characteristic alone 
is not probative of his specialized knowledge. The Petitioner has not pointed to specitic 
Matter of R- Corp. 
complexities in its software tools to distinguish them from the tools used by other organizations 
within the pharmaceutical industry in which the Beneficiary works. Thus, the record does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge of his employer's drug safety software tools is 
··special" or distinct from the knowledge held by other individuals in the same industry. Further. 
while the record shows that the Beneficiary has undergone some training with his current foreign 
employer, there is no evidence to suggest that the Beneficiary was offered such training as a path to 
gaining "special" knowledge of the company's proprietary software or that it was uncommon among 
employees like the Beneficiary within the industry. As previously stated. there is insufficient 
evidence to establish a nexus between the Beneficiary's courscwork and the "special'' knowledge he 
is claimed to have gained of the foreign employer's software products. 
In light of the above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that special knowledge is 
required to perform the Beneficiary's assigned duties or that his knowledge is distinct tram that of 
other individuals who develop drug safety software and can be taught only through prior experience 
with the organization. The Petitioner does not adequately specify how the Beneficiary's knowledge 
is "special'' or establish how and when the Beneficiary gained such knowledge. While the 
Beneficiary may be a valuable employee of the company and an experienced IT professional. the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to establish that his knowledge is "special,'' as defined in the Act 
and regulations. The Petitioner has submitted little evidence to set the Beneficiary· s knowledge 
apart or to demonstrate that it is uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished by some unusual quality. 
Due to these evidentiary deficiencies, the record does not establish that he possesses ·'special'· 
knowledge. 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner has not established, m the alternative. that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge. 
Determinations 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 impatied trom one person to another. 
Here, the Petitioner has neither claimed nor documented that the Beneficiary has advanced 
knowledge of company-specific processes or procedures. Rather, its claims have been focused on 
the Beneficiary's knowledge of the company's products and services and industry-based 
comparisons. The Petitioner has not provided information that would allow us to compare the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of company processes and procedures to that of others within the 
8 
Matter of R- Corp. 
petitiOning company and its foreign subsidiary and therefore has not supported a claim that his 
knowledge is "advanced.·· 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses special or advanced 
knowledge, we need not address whether the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a position 
involving specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneticiary 
possesses specialized knowledge, that he was employed abroad in a position involving specialized 
knowledge. and that he would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matler o{R- Corp.,ID# 928993 (AAO Feb. 13, 2018) 
9