dismissed L-1B Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 26, 2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a management consultant staffing firm for the financial services sector, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a service delivery lead under the L-1 B nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, that she has been 
employed abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge for at least one year, or that she will 
be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was not based on a review of the totality 
of the evidence submitted and was therefore unsubstantiated. Further, the Petitioner argues that the 
Director incorrectly applied the law by requiring that the Petitioner demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
has been performing in a specialized knowledge capacity for at least one year in the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. The Petitioner maintains that the record establishes by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
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 capacity involving 
specialized knowledge, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. Section 101(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. ld. -
Matter of P- LLC 
The relevant statutory definition states that 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. 
§ 1184( c )(2)(B). 
Specialized knowledge is also 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 processes and procedures. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
An individual L-IB classification petition must be accompanied by evidence that: the beneficiary has 
been employed abroad in a position that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized 
knowledge for at least one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition; the 
beneficiary is coming to work in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and, the beneficiary's prior education, 
training arid employment qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge, that she has been employed abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge for at 
least one year, or that she would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge 
capacity. 
Specifically, the Director determined that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary acquired 
special knowledge of the Petitioner's services and methodologies or clients that is truly distinct or 
uncmnmon compared to the knowledge typically possessed by recruiters in the industry, or 
knowledge of the firm's processes and procedures that is advanced compared to other employees 
within the Petitioner's group of companies. In addition, the Director observed that the Beneficiary 
had less than 13 months of employment with the foreign entity. Because the Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary spent her initial 12 to 16 weeks of employment in an "intensive training program," 
the Director found the record did not establish that she "had been performing for· a full year in a 
. specialized knowledge capacity abroad." 
As noted, the Petitioner maintains that the Director did not consider each piece of evidence 
submitted and did not apply the preponderance of the evidence standard. In addition, the Petitioner 
claims that the Director erred by requiring evidence that the Beneficiary has been performing in a 
specialized knowledge capacity for one year, as. the regulations require evidence that the 
Beneficiary's year of foreign employment involved specialized knowledge; and further erred by 
dismissing the Beneficiary's extensive knowledge of the Petitioner's clients' inner workings as not 
demonstrating specialized knowledge. The Petitioner contends that the record establishes that the 
2 
.
Matter of P- LLC 
Beneficiary possesses both special and advanced knowledge and that such knowledge is required for 
the offered U.S. position. 
As a threshold issue, we must determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. If the evidence is insufficient to establish that she possesses 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that she has been employed abroad in a position 
involving specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
A petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition of specialized knowledge. Under the statute, 
a beneficiary is considered to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: (1) a "special" 
knowledge ofthe company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" 
level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the 
Act. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and 
type of evidence which establishes whether 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. 
Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary possesses both special and advanced knowledge 
gained during her employment with its United Kingdom subsidiary, where she had worked as a 
"recruitment analyst (recruiter)" for 1 year and 20 days as of the date this petition was filed. 
A. Background 
The Petitioner is a management consulting firm providing regulatory compliance staffing services to 
the global investment banking sectors. It recruits new graduates and seasoned professionals in the 
financial services sector and places these consultants with their clients to fulfill their specific staffing 
needs, often on a temporary basis. The Petitioner has offered the Beneficiary the U.S.-based 
position of service delivery lead, a promotion from her current position of recruiter. 
As a recruiter, the Beneficiary performs recruitment, marketing, sales, and personnel management 
functions. The job description for the offered service delivery lead position is similar with an 
additional category of "customer relationship management" duties that include serving as a primary 
contact for clients and managing customer relationships by managing expectations and responding to 
client feedback. The Petitioner indicated that it expects the Beneficiary to spend 40% of her time 
working with 30% of her time with and 30% of her time 
on new business development and expansion of existing client relationships. 
3 
.
Matter of P- LLC 
B. Special Knowledge 
Because "special knowledge" concerns 
knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or 
services and its application in international markets, a petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to the 
knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular industry. Knowledge that is 
I 
commonly held throughout a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to 
another is not considered specialized. 
The Petitioner's primary claim on appeal is that the Beneficiary possesses special knowledge of the 
company's services, research, techniques, management and other interests and its application in 
international markets. The Petitioner focuses on the Beneficiary's client-specific and market­
specific knowledge, specifically her contacts 
within and experience working with 
this client, and her knowledge of other clients and the company's ongoing contracts in the U.K. and 
European banking sector. 
Before addressing the claims made on appeal, we note that the Petitioner has previously maintained 
that the Beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon within the industry at large because the Petitioner 
occupies a niche within the staffing industry and the nature of its services requires an employee with 
specialized knowledge. The Petitioner submitted a report published by the 
which states that only 13% of employees hired through temporary and contract staffing 
arrangements work in professional or managerial positions, with financial regulatory and compliance 
staff occupying a smaller subset of those occupations. As such, the Petitioner stressed that the 
Beneficiary's job duties are tailored to the industry the Petitioner serves, and that even if the duties 
themselves were common, the knowledge required to perform them is not. The Petitioner pointed 
out that its recruiters source highly-paid professionals and that the job requires "specialized 
knowledge of the challenges global banks face in light of variations between regulatory regimes 
around the world." 
However, a review of the Beneficiary's qualifications, and the credentials provided for other 
similarly employed workers in the company, undermines the Petitioner's claim that this industry­
specific knowledge qualifies as special knowledge. When hired by the foreign entity, the 
Beneficiary, like her colleagues, was lacking recruiting experience and experience in the banking or 
financial services sector, yet the Petitioner maintains that she was able to successfully source and 
recruit staff in this sector essentially immediately upon being hired. 
While the Petitioner claims that all of its recruitment department employees undergo 12 to 16 weeks 
of intensive training under the supervision of an experience recruiter, it has not sufficiently 
documented this training nor described it in detail. The Petitioner submitted a copy of its 16-page 
"Recruiter Manual" which provides a step-by-step_ guide to sourcing, recruiting, screening and 
onboarding candidates to fill client needs, but it has not stated that its employees receive any specific 
training in the financial services or banking sector subject matter. In fact, the record contains a self­
evaluation statement indicating that the Beneficiary rated her own technical knowledge of 
finance/banking as "satisfactory" (a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10) at the end of her first year of 
4 . 
.
Matter of P- LLC 
employment with the foreign entity. In addition, the Petitioner later downplayed the length of the 
training program, noting that the Beneficiary had "several weeks" of training, "learned very quickly 
and was performing tasks involving specialized knowledge within days of joining [the foreign 
entity]." 
It may be true that knowledge of the staffing requirements of the banking and financial services 
sector are not widely known by professional recruiters; however, the Petitioner must also establish 
that the knowledge cannot be easily imparted in order to establish that it is truly distinct or 
uncommon. The Petitioner has not met that burden as the evidence submitted instead supports a 
finding that the knowledge needed to recruit professionals in this field can be quickly learned on the 
job by those with an aptitude for the work. 
Similarly, the Petitioner has not identified any other aspects of its internal recruiting and placement 
processes that would require special knowledge that is somehow different from that held by those 
working for other staffing firms. The Petitioner has stated that someone who is already familiar with 
financial institution regulatory compliance would be incapable of adequately performing the service 
delivery lead job duties and it would require "at least a year to trairt to a level of minimal 
proficiency," since they would be "unacquainted with [the company's] clients, services or 
operations." The Petit~oner has not attempted to reconcile this claim with its claim that the 
I 
Beneficiary was fully performing most of these duties within days or weeks of jo;ining the foreign 
entity despite having no prior recruiting experience or employment-based exposure to the field of 
financial institution regulatory compliance. 
Further, based on the evidence submitted, it appears that the Petitioner's clients establish the nature and 
parameters for the services to be provided and choose from competing staffing firms after considering 
their proposals. This evidence suggests that other firms can and do provide comparable services to the 
same client base, and the Petitioner has not elaborated on any aspect of its recruiting methods to 
establish that they are different from methods generally found in the industry or that they could not be 
learned within a short period of time. Even if the Petitioner's methods and processes can be considered 
proprietary, the Petitioner must still establish that qualities of its processes or methods require its 
employees to have knowledge that is truly different from what is commonly found in the industry. The 
fact that other workers may not have the same level of experience with the petitioner's methodologies as 
applied to a specific client is not enough to equate to special knowledge such knowledge could be 
readily imparted to a similarly educated or experienced employee. 
In sum, the record does not support a finding that knowledge of either the Petitioner's niche field or 
its internal recruiting methods constitutes special knowledge. 
We now turn to the Petitioner's primary claims on appeal, in which it emphasizes that the position of 
service delivery lead requires the Beneficiary's knowledge of (1) current contracts under 
implementation; (2) the requirements of Petitioner's investment banking clients who operate in both 
the United States as well as in the U.K. and Europe; and (3) the Petitioner's past busine~s history 
with these clients, particularly The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has 
5 
.
Matter of P- LLC 
knowledge in these areas that is "distinct or uncommon" even in comparison to its own U.S.-based 
workers. 
The Petitioner explained that none of its U.S. employees have the "knowledge and relationships" to 
take responsibility for the contracts, noting that its other recruiters, service delivery 
leads and managers are already fully engaged and not as intimately involved in the day-to-day 
interactions with to be able to "grasp the totality of the project." 
In support of its claim that the Beneficiary possesses the required knowledge, the Petitioner 
emphasized that the Beneficiary has been performing "the leading project management role in 
connection with a major, multiyear contract we have entered with and which is now 
principally managed by out of its U.S. offices." The Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary has also developed knowledge of how "our services as marketed to our U.K. and 
European multinational investment banking clients," and further elaborated that this knowledge 
includes: 
• The internal structure, culture and processes of [the company's] investment bank 
clients related to practices regarding obtaining consulting services ... ; 
• The internal structure, culture, and processes of [the company's] existing U.S. 
clients, gained from providing services to those clients' UK branches; 
• The culture and processes of investment bank personnel involved in hiring 
consultant services working at banks who are [the company's] current or 
prospective clients; 
• How to effectively contact key stakeholders within investment banks, build 
rapport with those contacts, and tum those contacts into contracts for [the 
company]; 
• Developing consulting projects from pitch through contract, gained from 
experience working on projects for existing clients such as 
• Negotiating contract details for [the Petitioner], especially as related to 
negotiations with 
• Consulting needs and vendor expectations within the investment banking market, 
especially as it pertains to and other current and prospective 
clients; and 
• Specific consulting contracts, especially the ongoing contracts with 
and other current [company] clients. 
As evidence of the Beneficiary's involvement in the company's contract with the 
Petitioner provided copies of four proposals made to that client and several "representative 
Statements of Work." One of the proposals lists the Beneficiary as the presenter, while the others 
identify her as "US Service Delivery Lead" or "Engagement Lead." All of the proposals are dated 
between April and June 2016 and three of them indicate that the Beneficiary has been working with 
colleagues based in the Petitioner's U.S. office to place staff in the United States. In addition, the 
Petitioner submitted proposals prepared or presented by the Beneficiary and the Petitioner's U.S. 
staff for three other clients in May and June 2016, also to fulfill staffing needs in the United States. 
6 
.
Matter of P- LLC 
We have observed some inconsistencies and ambiguities in this evidence. First, the proposal that the 
Beneficiary ostensibly presented to a representative in May 2016 ("Loan Operations I 
Ireland") contains an inaccurate summary biography of the Beneficiary's education and 
experience that raises questions regarding its credibility. This biography indicates that the 
Beneficiary has an "MSc International Management" from the when 
in fact, the Beneficiary has a bachelor's degree from a different Irish university. The presentation 
materials also indicate that she has three years of experience with the foreign entity (since 2013) 
working primarily with The Beneficiary joined the foreign entity 10 months prior to 
the date on this proposal. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a promotion letter indicating that the Beneficiary held the 
position ofre,cruiter up until August 1, 2016, and it is unclear why she is identified as a U.S. service 
delivery lead on several documents that 
pre-date that promotion by as much as four months. The 
Beneficiary's four-page self-evaluation statement prepared around that time does not suggest that 
she was leading a major project for or serving in the service delivery lead role prior 
to her promotion. The Petitioner has not resolved these inconsistencies in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). While we do not doubt that the Beneficiary has experience in providing 
resources for in her role as a recruiter, it is unclear to what extent she has been 
"performing the leading project management role" for this client. 
Nevertheless, in response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner placed great emphasis 
on the Beneficiary's knowledge of and personal contacts with noting that she stands 
out from other recruiters in the field because of her "in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner 's 
relationship with It provided a supplemental table showing "how the Beneficiary ' s 
knowledge compares to the knowledge generally required from similarly employed individuals , and 
to the knowledge of other Recruiters and Service Delivery Leads currently working for Petitioner in 
their office." Although the Petitioner stresses the Beneficiary ' s prior experience with the 
client 
and her client contacts in the United Kingdom, most of the supporting evidence shows that she 
has been working with the Petitioner's U.S. staff to recruit and place consultants at U.S.-based 
locations in the months leading up to the filing of the petition , while one proposal 
involves placement of staff in Ireland. We cannot determine based on the evidence submitted that 
the Beneficiary has been serving as the lead project manager for the Petitioner's long-standing 
contract with or that she has extensive experience working with the client's U.K. and 
European offices. 
The Petitioner stated that other employees in the office lack "intangible elements of 
business culture that can only be learned through immersion in the European banking sector, 
specifically through relationships with the banking executives responsible for hiring external 
consultants and contracting with staffing agencies like ours to meet temporary employment needs." 
The Petitioner explained that based on the rate at which it is acquiring new business it does not have 
"the luxury of time to send someone to Europe for immersion nor do we have any other way to 
transfer the knowledge we required to our office. " 
7 
.
Matter of P- LLC 
However, the Petitioner has also stated that the U.K. subsidiary's operations "are highly integrated 
into [the Petitioner's] global operations, inasmuch as our clients in are also our clients in the 
United States and elsewhere in the world," with "a great deal of coordination among our offices." 
As noted, the submitted proposals indicate that the Beneficiary has been working with the 
Petitioner's and client's U.S. offices to staffU.S.-based positions despite not having any, much less a 
full year, of immersion in the United States banking sector. These facts tend to undermine the 
Petitioner's claim that a one-year assignment in Europe would be required to perform the duties of 
the U.S. position. 
The Petitioner's president, submitted a letter in which he emphasized the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of "how to effectively contact key stakeholders" and build rapport, stating: 
"It is one thing to make a call, it is another thing to get a person to return your call. The second step 
is vital and requires specialized knowledge." He explained that the Beneficiary "knows how to 
leverage her knowledge of the banking industry and our clients in particular to effectively reach out 
to new contacts" and that "she has picked it up faster than any other recruiter we have trained." 
noted that the Beneficiary's knowledge extends to "the intangible inner-workings and 
unwritten rules of doing business followed by our UK-based clients," noting that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge and relationships "have been built up over time based on repeated and ongoing 
interactions" and "are built on mutual respect and trust going well beyond simple access to an email 
address o[r] phone number." He allowed that "other people have the integrity to build this 
knowledge and relationships," but emphasized that the Beneficiary already has this knowledge, 
"knows not only who to call but what to say" and "knows who to email and how to frame those 
emails to achieve results." 
went on to name the Beneficiary's contacts within 
and explaining that the Beneficiary "knows how these people work," 
"their role within their organizations," "what they do and what decisions they can make in regard to 
using our s,ervices," and "how to communicate with them effectively." In explaining the 
Beneficiary's specialized knowledge of "negotiating contract details," he explained that "learning to 
price labor and understand a client's appetite for external spending" is something that "cannot be 
easily taught, nor can it be easily learned without aptitude for interpersonal nuance in the context of 
corporate structure." Here, again emphasized that the Beneficiary "has met 
important gate keepers and decision makers" within business, finance and 
procurement divisions and "has a unique view of their business plans, strategies, hiring needs, 
pricing structures and project costing models." · 
Taken together, much of the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge is based, in large part, on 
factors such as her interpersonal skills, communication skills, confidence in her sales skills, existing 
professional relationships with client contacts, and "aptitude for personal nuance." While all of 
these attributes undoubtedly make her well prepared for the offered sales-focused position, the 
Petitioner has not established that these skills amount to special knowledge of the Petitioner's 
services. The record shows that the Petitioner has long-standing relationships with a number of 
well-kn6wn clients in the international banking and financial services sector. Individual employees 
within the U.S. and U.K. entities may have more contact with some clients than others, but it is 
8 
.
Matter of P- LLC 
reasonable to believe that any recruiter or service delivery lead representing the petltwning 
company, even a new hire, would reasonably be able to communicate with any given client 
regarding the Petitioner's services because the company is well-known to the clients. The Petitioner 
specifically states that the Beneficiary herself was expected to do so almost immediately upon being 
hired and that she quickly excelled at her duties. The Petitioner has not established how a specific 
recruiter's rapport with a client, or the ability to establish a rapport, qualifies as special knowledge. 
With respect to the contract with the record shows that the Petitioner's relationship 
with this client clearly pre-dates the Beneficiary 's employment with the U.K. company, and there is 
insufficient evidence in the record to establish that she possesses knowledge of this client beyond 
what is generally held in the company. Moreover, the Petitioner has not explained why knowledge 
of any particular client's needs is considered special knowledge, as all of the clients appear to have 
similar staffing needs. The Petitioner has not distinguished why the knowledge needed to recruit 
financial consultants for is somehow different from what is generally required to 
service other clients, either within the company or within the industry. 
The fact that workers outside the organization do not have existing professional contacts with 
individual employees of its clients' organizations, does not establish that this type of knowledge is 
special. All employees can be said to possess unique skill sets to some degree; however, a skill set 
that can be easily imparted to another similarly educated and generally experienced recruiter is not 
"special knowledge." Again, the Petitioner must establish that the position requires this employee to 
have knowledge that is uncommon in the industry and knowledge that could not be readily 
transferred. Here, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim that the duties could only be 
performed by an employee with a year of immersion in the European banking sector and existing 
relationships with its client's U.K. and European employees. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary is the most efficient choice for transfer 
because she already possesses the required client-specific, technical, and market-specific knowledge 
required for the position. However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the Beneficiary 
acquired knowledge that is special within the industry based on her completion of "several weeks" 
of training under the supervision of a recruiter and a year of experience in a recruiting role. While it 
may be true that there are no employees in the United States office with the exact same knowledge 
the Beneficiary possesses, the record does nor sufficiently support the Petitioner's claim that the 
knowledge is in fact significantly different from that generally held by professionals in its industry, 
or that it would require up to a full year or longer to acquire the knowledge needed for the position. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special 
knowledge of the company's services and methods and their application in international markets. 
C. Advanced Knowledge 
We have also considered whether the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge. At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge 
based on her training in the company's "internal proprietary systems and processes, including their 
9 
.
Matter of P- LLC 
internal project management software and their methods of recruiting top talent to meet 
their client's consulting needs." 
Because "advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization 's processes and procedures, 
the Petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the Beneficiary has knowledge of or 
expertise in the organization 's processes and procedures that is greatly developed or further along in 
progress, complexity and understanding in comparison to other workers in the employer's 
operations. Such advanced knowledge must be supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart 
from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. 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. 
In its initial letter in support of the petition, the Petitioner emphasized that the Beneficiary possesses 
the following: 
• Expert knowledge of [the Petitioner 's] internal recruitment, selection, and 
placement processes for matching prospective consultants with the client 
requiring their skills; " • Advanced knowledge of the vendor management systems used by [the 
Petitioner 's] clients 1 etc.) to solicit consultant 
services and review candidate resumes; 
• Advanced knowledge of [the Petitioner's] proprietary 
management software; 
• Advanced knowledge of [the Petitioner 's] pricing practices; . 
• Advanced knowledge of [the Petitioner's] internal contract requirements and 
practices; 
• Advanced knowledge of the skillsets available within [the Petitioner's] pool of 
prospective consultants; 
• Advanced knowledge [the Petitioner's] "Future Leaders" programs, the 
opportunities available to the alumni of that program, and the skill sets of 
potential candidates comi~g through that program; 
• Advanced knowledge of [the Petitioner's] internal procedures for negotiating 
terms with prospective consultants ; 
• Advanced knowledge of the duties of recruiters within [the Petitioner], 
specifically with regard to internal' management, consultants , and clients; and 
• Advanced knowledge of internal training program for new 
recruiters. 
As noted, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "went through an intensive training program 
when she was hired" by its foreign subsidiary, noting that this initial training takes 12 to 16 weeks, 
and involves working "side-by-side with a senior recruiter" under intense supervision. The 
Petitioner noted that only 70% of its new recruiters remain at the company beyond their initial 
training, and that the Beneficiary, in the past year, "reached the level of expertise with our internal 
systems and procedures we do not usually see until an employee has been with us for two ye ~rs. " 
I 
10 
.
Matter of P- LLC 
In support of its claim that the Beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge of the company 's 
methods, processes, and procedures, the Petitioner submitted a copy of its internal, 16-page 
"Recruiter Manual," and materials describing the vendor management systems used by its recruiters, 
including (used by (used by , and 
(used by The Petitioner did not further describe or document the nature or content of 
its training program or what specific training its employees receive in internal procedures related to 
negotiations, pricing practices, internal contract practices, or the ' software. The 
Petitioner later noted that the Beneficiary had "several weeks" of training, was a particularly fast 
learner and "was performing tasks involving specialized knowledge within days" of joining the 
foreign entity. 
As discussed above, we found that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that 
knowledge of its internal practices and procedures constitute special knowledge that could not be 
easily imparted to another individual in the Petitioner's industry. Likewise, we find insufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has acquired advanced knowledge of the company ' s 
processes and procedures during her one year period of employment with the foreign entity. While 
the Petitioner maintains that she excels in her role as a recruiter, it has not provided relevant 
information that would allow us to compare her knowledge to that of other employees within the 
organization, who reasonably would have received the same training upon joining the company. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of resumes for similarly employed workers based in its 
office. A resume for a service delivery lead shows that he, like the Beneficiary, received his 
bachelor's degree in 2015, was hired by the Petitioner in July 2015 as a recruiter, and was promoted 
to the service delivery lead position in August 2016. Another service delivery lead, hired in 
September 2015, joined the petitioning company in that position, having received her bachelor's 
degree in 2014 and with approximately one year of post-university experience with unrelated 
employers. A lead recruiter's resume shows that she was hired straight out of college as a 
recruitment intern and was promoted annually to the positions of recruiter and then senior recruiter 
before assuming her current position. There is no information provided in the resumes that would 
give us insight into the extent of the employees' relative knowledge of company policies and 
practices. The Beneficiary, who received a promotion to service delivery lead approximately one 
year after being hired as a recruiter, appears to be on a typical career trajectory within the company 
and the evidence does not support a finding that she has acquired advanced knowledge in 
comparison to her colleagues. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner 's claim that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a 
specialized knowledge employee consistent with the USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-
1 B Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy­
memoranda. Specifically, the Petitioner emphasizes that it expects the Beneficiary to generate 
revenue in excess of $11.4 million in just her first 12 months based on her assignment to work with 
and other existing and new clients. 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 may be filling a role beneficial 
to the Petitioner 's competitiveness in the marketplace, this characteristic alone is not probative of her 
11 
Matter of P- LLC 
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." !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. 
It is clear that the Petitioner considers the Beneficiary to be a valuable and highly productive 
employee who excels at her position, but it has not sufficiently shown that her knowledge of 
company processes and procedures is advanced compared to other similarly employed-workers 
performing recruiting or service delivery lead duties, or that she possesses special knowledge that is 
different from what is generally held in the Petitioner's industry. 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses special or advanced 
knowledge, we need not address whether the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
D. Foreign Employment 
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge for at least one year in the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary acquired specialized 
knowledge during her period of employment abroad and therefore cannot meet this requirement. 
However, we will address the Petitioner's claim that the Director erred by requiring that the 
Beneficiary had a full year of continuous employment during which she was "performing in a 
specialized knowledge capacity." The Director focused on the Petitioners claim that the Beneficiary 
underwent 12 to 16 weeks of intensive training upon being hired and determined that this training 
period could not count towards her one year of specialized knowledge employ~ent. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary received "on the job" training under supervision, during 
which time she was perfo~ing the duties of a recruiter while acquiring and using the claimed 
specialized knowledge. As noted, the Petitioner's training program is not well explained or 
documented in the record. The record tends to support the Petitioner's claim that any training the 
Beneficiary received more likely than not occurred on-the-job. For example, as a recruiter, the 
Beneficiary was required to review a minimum number of resumes each week, and the Petitioner 
submitted a log showing that the Beneficiary was meeting this minimum from her second week on 
the job. We agree with the Petitioner's suggestion that training that occurs on the job, in conjunction 
with a beneficiary's regular duties can be counted towards the one year of foreign employment 
requirement where the position otherwise itfvolves specialized knowledge. However, we cannot 
conclude that the Beneficiary's recruiter position involved specialized knowledge. Therefore, while 
we disagree, in part with the Director's reasoning, we find that the Petitioner did not establish that 
the Beneficiary's one year of foreign employment involved the required specialized knowledge. 
12 
Matter of P- LLC 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofP- LLC, ID# 257371 (AAO Apr. 26, 2017) 
13