dismissed L-1B Case: Marketing And Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 18, 2024 In Re: 33442848 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker) 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a marketing and consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as its director of branding under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition on multiple grounds. The Director 
concluded the Petitioner did not establish that: 1) it had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's 
asserted foreign employer, 2) the Beneficiary's foreign employer was doing business abroad, 3) the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad with a qualifying organization for one continuous year in the three 
years preceding the date the petition was filed, 4) the Beneficiary possessed special or advanced 
knowledge, and 5) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a position involving specialized or 
advanced knowledge. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
in a specialized knowledge capacity for one continuous year in the three years preceding his 
application for admission into the United States. Since this issue is dispositive, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments with respect to the Director's other ground for denial. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of 
L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB 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 l Ol (a)(l 5)(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. Id. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a "Contact Center Consulting Company," indicated that the 
Beneficiary holds an "irreplaceable role" with the company working abroad in Nigeria. The Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary joined the company in March 2021 and focused on enhancing the company's 
"Linkedin presence," helping it generate "over 100,000 followers" as well as assisting it in having 
"Linkedin followers skyrocket from a humble 5,000 to an impressive 16,000." The Petitioner explained 
that the Beneficiary "personalized his approach and methodology ... allowing the brand to shine and 
engage with meaningful conversations within the Linkedin community." It further stated that the 
Beneficiary took on an expanded role in June 2023 as the director of AI ( artificial intelligence) solutions 
using his "extensive knowledge across Linkedin, Y ouTube, and Twitter, seamlessly integrating his AI 
expertise and training to drive innovation and effectiveness." 
In response to the request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's resume 
reflecting that he was employed as a brand strategist abroad from April 2021 to July 2023. As a brand 
strategist, the Beneficiary was tasked with building and strengthening the Petitioner's social media 
presence on Linkedin, expertly generating and converting leads using data-driven insights, conducting 
Linkedin profile optimization, and employing advanced brand techniques and technicalities. Further, 
the Beneficiary's resume showed he was employed abroad from July 2023 to the date the petition was 
filed in December 2023 as director of AI solutions spearheading the development and implementation 
of smart AI tools tailored to match the company's business goals, harnessing AI tools to solve intricate 
business problems, using day-driven approaches to tap into the power of predictive analytics, and 
conducting research and data analysis to simplify outsourcing and vendor management decisions. 
The Petitioner further submitted an affidavit from its CEO stating that the company "excels in connecting 
businesses with optimal customer services solutions, specializing in Contact Center Technology and 
Business Process Outsourcing." The CEO stated that since the Beneficiary began working for the 
Petitioner abroad, he "has been pivotal in defining our success," using his "unique approach to 
leveraging Linkedin" to facilitate significant client engagement, including his "strategic use of tools like 
Linkedin Sales Navigator." She indicated the Beneficiary had expertise in "leveraging user data, 
effective lead generation, understanding behavioral triggers, and geolocation targeting, together with the 
use of tools such as Linkedin Sales Navigator, Hubspot, and Trello has led to our success in identifying 
potential clients." She also explained that the Beneficiary possesses a unique blend of skills, knowledge, 
and experience differentiating him from others in the company and others who work in the same field, 
skills and knowledge she considered "advanced compared to others in his field." She noted that the 
Beneficiary's "unique blend of strategic vision and technical acumen .. .is a testament to his extensive 
2 
learning and application in both fields," asserting that "gaining a solid foundation in both fields to [the 
Beneficiary's] level would take a minimum of 5 years of dedicated study and practical experience." 
In addition, the Petitioner provided an affidavit from the Beneficiary stating that his initial role with the 
company as a brand strategist "relied extensively on my knowledge and expertise in brand 
management/strategy and an understanding of the Linkedin landscape," but now it had "expanded to 
include my application of AI technologies, gained through prior experience, research, study, and ongoing 
training." The Petitioner also explained that he had earned certifications in AI between May and August 
2023, including one titled "Introduction to Generative AI," noting that the certifications and knowledge 
"have been essential to my duties." The Beneficiary asserted that for another individual to "learn how I 
implement the market analysis model and software tools effectively to be able to [his] job at the 
Petitioner, it would take around one year of study and on-the-job application of the tools." 
The Petitioner further provided an expert opinion letter from a professor of business and marketing from 
the ._________ __. opining that the Beneficiary possessed specialized knowledge of the 
proprietary processes and procedures and specialized business systems of the Petitioner. He also stated 
that the Beneficiary is distinguished "by a blend of creativity, strategic thinking, and deep understanding 
of marketing analytics and AI, positioning him as a standout performer among his peers and competitors 
in the field." The Petitioner further submitted numerous emails and screenshots reflecting the 
Beneficiary's communications between the Beneficiary and the CEO throughout his employment 
reflecting a wide range of sales and marketing tasks. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a special or advanced knowledge capacity. The Director stated that the Petitioner 
did not provide sufficient insight into the Beneficiary's day-to-day job duties and did not establish that 
his use of the company's methods, tools, or processes was overly complex or sophisticated. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director did not sufficiently consider the submitted expert opinion 
and support letters from its CEO and the Beneficiary. The Petitioner contends these letters address the 
Beneficiary's specialized knowledge "based on the Petitioner's unpublished methodologies and 
company strategies," how it is unique to the field, and "not easily replaceable." The Petitioner points to 
documentation of the Beneficiary's experience and qualifications, correspondence and reports reflecting 
his financial impact on its operations, and the provided expert opinion letter and asserts this evidence 
demonstrates that his knowledge is sophisticated, complex, and highly technical. 
III. FOREIGN SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE CAPACITY FOR ONE YEAR 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was 
employed in a specialized knowledge capacity abroad for one continuous year. 
Under the statute, 
a beneficiary is considered to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: (1) a 
"special" knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an 
"advanced" level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). A petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that 
the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong, or both prongs, of the statutory 
definition of specialized knowledge. Specialized knowledge is also defined as special knowledge 
3 
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(1)(1 )(ii)(D). 
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 an employee is able 
to gain specialized knowledge within the organization and explain how and when the individual 
beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
A. Advanced Knowledge 
We will first discuss whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad for one year in a position requiring knowledge that is "advanced." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(D). 
As a preliminary matter, although the Petitioner vaguely indicates that the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
"specialized and advanced," it does not address these two bases for eligibility separately and articulate 
how he meets each standard. Although the Petitioner does discuss the "Beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge of the Petitioner's unique methodologies and systems," suggesting it asserts he held 
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 
imparted from one person to another. See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual L.4, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
In order to establish the Beneficiary's eligibility, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity for one continuous year within the three 
years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. Section 
101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. As discussed, the Petitioner indicated the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
as a brand strategist from April 2021 to July 2023, and then later as director of AT solutions from July 
2023 to the date the petition was filed in December 2023. Therefore, to establish that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity for one year, it was required to demonstrate 
that both of his positions abroad required specialized knowledge, since his later role as director of AT 
4 
only accounted for only approximately five months of asserted foreign employment. 1 Here, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that his initial role as a brand strategist abroad required 
advanced knowledge. 
First, the Petitioner has not sufficiently defined the nature of the Beneficiary's advanced knowledge 
while employed as a brand strategist. For instance, the Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is rooted in its "unpublished methodologies and company strategies" and 
"unique methodologies and systems." However, the Petitioner did not provide a detailed explanation 
of the claimed proprietary methodologies, strategies, or systems the Beneficiary had knowledge of 
when employed as a brand strategist. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary, during his initial role 
as brand strategist, used a "unique approach to leveraging Linkedin" to facilitate significant client 
engagement, including his "strategic use of tools like Linkedin Sales Navigator." The Petitioner further 
pointed to his expertise in "leveraging user data, effective lead generation, understanding behavioral 
triggers, and geolocation targeting, together with the use of tools such as Linkedin Sales Navigator, 
Hubspot, and Trello has led to our success in identifying potential clients." However, in each case, it is 
not clear how the Beneficiary's use of these third-party software applications, such as Linkedln Sales 
Navigator, Hubspot, Trello, amongst others, represented knowledge of the company's proprietary 
processes and procedures. 
Without supporting evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that many other marketing professionals 
utilize these tools distributed by vendors and that these software vendors likely have proprietary rights 
to these technologies. It is noteworthy that the Petitioner largely emphasizes the Beneficiary's 
knowledge of AI in support letters; however, the record reflects that he did not gain knowledge of this 
technology until after his employment as a brand strategist had concluded, as his certifications reflect 
that he did not complete them until August 2023. Therefore, in sum, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
articulated the company processes and procedures in which he had advanced knowledge during his 
employment as a brand strategist abroad from April 2021 to July 2023. 
The Petitioner also submitted substantial supporting documentation reflecting the work he performed 
for the company while employed as a brand strategist, including emails and screenshots of direct 
messages between him and the company's CEO. However, this supporting documentation did not 
clearly reflect his use of specific company processes and procedures, but his performance of a wide array 
of administrative and marketing tasks. For example, the submitted communications between the CEO 
and the Beneficiary show him completing estimates of foreign labor rates and inflation projections, 
collecting information on outsourcing in India and South Africa, helping the CEO to formulate requests 
for proposal and information, presenting on brand strategies, assisting in posting messages on Linkedln 
and other social media, among other similar tasks. Therefore, in its totality, the supporting evidence 
reflected the Beneficiary's performance of many different sales and marketing tasks, rather than a focus 
and mastery of a specific set of methodologies and systems unique to the Petitioner. The Petitioner 
does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary's duties as a brand strategist were materially 
different from any similarly placed marketing or brand professional, nor does it specifically describe 
1 We decline to analyze and hereby reserve any analysis as to whether the Beneficiary's role as director of AI solutions 
required advanced or special knowledge. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 24, 25 (1976); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. at 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015). 
5 
the claimed proprietary processes and procedures he gained knowledge of while employed as a brand 
strategist. 
In addition, the Petitioner's CEO stated that "gaining a solid foundation in both field to [the 
Beneficiary's] level would take a minimum of 5 years of dedicated study and practical experience," 
while in contrast, the Beneficiary stated that for another individual to gain his level of knowledge "it 
would take around one year of study and on-the-job application of the tools." This material discrepancy 
leaves significant ambiguity as to how long it would take another to reach the Beneficiary's level of 
knowledge. Further, it is not clear whether this represents the level knowledge required for his former 
position as a brand strategist, director of AI, or his proposed position in the United States. Regardless, 
the Petitioner has not clearly articulated how long it would take another to reach the Beneficiary's level 
of knowledge, and whether his knowledge could not easily be imparted to another, particularly with 
respect to his initial entry level position as brand strategist. The Petitioner must resolve discrepancies 
and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner also did not sufficiently establish how the Beneficiary's knowledge was greatly developed 
as compared to similarly placed colleagues within the organization by providing probative comparisons 
of his knowledge against that of his colleagues. Determining whether knowledge was "advanced" 
inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge against that of others. The Petitioner 
bears the burden of establishing such a favorable comparison. Id. However, the Petitioner provided 
no specific comparisons of the Beneficiary's knowledge and experience as a brand strategist against 
that of his colleagues within the greater organization. For instance, the Petitioner indicated that it 
employed another professional based in Nigeria but provided no specifics as to the duties or experience 
of this employee, nor an explanation of how the Beneficiary's knowledge of its processes and 
procedures exceeded that of this, or any other, colleague within the organization to credibly 
differentiate his knowledge and experience. 
On appeal, the Petitioner farther emphasizes that the Director did not sufficiently consider the expert 
opinion provided from a professor of business and marketing from the._________ _. This 
professor opined that the Beneficiary possessed specialized knowledge of the proprietary processes and 
procedures and specialized business systems of the Petitioner. However, the expert opinion again does 
not clearly articulate the nature of the Petitioner's proprietary processes and procedures in layman's 
terms. The professor stated that the Beneficiary is distinguished "by a blend of creativity, strategic 
thinking, and deep understanding of marketing analytics and AI, positioning him as a standout performer 
among his peers and competitors in the field." The expert's letter, much like the Petitioner's assertions, 
emphasizes the Beneficiary's combination of prior marketing knowledge and his knowledge of AI. 
However, as we have discussed, the record reflects that the Beneficiary did not gain his certifications in 
AI until May and August 2023, the latter of which was completed only approximately four months prior 
to the date the petition was filed and after his employment as a brand strategist had ended. Therefore, 
the provided expert opinion letter does not establish that the Beneficiary's position as a brand strategist 
was advanced as defined by the regulations. Where an opinion is not in accord with other information 
6 
or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept it or may give less weight to that evidence. 
Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
We have little doubt that the Beneficiary was likely a valuable employee while employed as a brand 
strategist, but the Petitioner has not met the regulatory requirement of demonstrating with 
documentary evidence that the Beneficiary's knowledge while employed in this position required 
advanced knowledge of the organization's processes and procedures that was greatly developed or 
further along in progress, complexity, and understanding in comparison to other workers in the 
employer's operations. For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses advanced knowledge. 
B. Special Knowledge 
We will next discuss whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary's knowledge while 
employed as a brand strategist was "special." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
Determining whether a beneficiary had "special knowledge" requires review of a given beneficiary's 
knowledge of how the petitioning organization manufactures, produces, or develops its products, 
services, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. Because "special 
knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its 
application in international markets, a petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the 
beneficiary had knowledge that was distinct or uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other 
similarly employed workers in the particular industry. Knowledge that is commonly held throughout 
a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to another is not considered 
special knowledge. See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual L.4, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
Again, as we previously indicated, the Petitioner did not clearly assert whether the Beneficiary's 
knowledge was advanced or special, or both. However, the Petitioner emphasized that the provided 
letters and the expert opinion support a conclusion that the Beneficiary held "advanced knowledge 
compared to others in the same industry." Upon review, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is special as defined by the regulations. 
As we discussed at length in the previous section, the Petitioner does not clearly describe the 
Beneficiary's knowledge in easily understandable terms but submits several tasks and types of 
knowledge he utilized while performing his primary role abroad as a brand strategist. For instance, as 
noted, the Petitioner emphasized his use of tools such as Linkedln Sales Navigator, Hubspot, and Trello, 
among others, leading to success in identifying potential clients. However, the Petitioner did not 
adequately demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge of third-party software was distinct or 
uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the industry. 
Again, the Petitioner's CEO, the Beneficiary, and the provided expert opinion letter all suggest that 
the Beneficiary knowledge is a combination of his use of the discussed software and other marketing 
techniques, combined with his knowledge of AI. However, as noted, the provided evidence indicates 
that the Beneficiary did not acquire a high level of knowledge of AI until at least August 2023, or after 
7 
his employment as a brand strategist ended. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The Petitioner states on appeal that the support letters establish that his knowledge is "sophisticated, 
complex, and highly technical." Even if we accept that the Petitioner held knowledge of specific 
proprietary procedures and processes of the company while employed as a brand strategist, this alone is 
not sufficient to establish that his knowledge is distinct or uncommon in the industry. In fact, it is 
common in nearly every industry for companies to hold unique or proprietary knowledge and to work 
on highly complex products and services. The Petitioner must set the Beneficiary apart from similarly 
placed workers within the industry and demonstrate that his knowledge as distinct or uncommon in 
comparison. 
However, the Petitioner did not specifically compare the Beneficiary's education, experience, and 
training to similarly placed brands strategists in the industry. For example, the Petitioner submitted 
documentation reflecting several other brand strategists including "22 amazing young Linkedin 
influencers" based just in his country, suggesting it is likely that many others work in this industry and 
have substantial experience of widely used technologies such as Linkedln. It is also reasonable to 
conclude that these professionals likely held knowledge of marketing techniques, branding strategies, 
and the processes and procedures of their specific clients and employers, much like the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate how the Beneficiary's education and experience was 
uncommon when compared to other similarly placed colleagues within the industry. Without 
objective evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that there are many other brand 
strategists who have extensive experience in their company's products and processes. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's knowledge is "special" as defined by the 
regulations. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Beneficiary did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a specialized knowledge 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding his application for admission into the 
United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. For this reason, the appeal must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8