dismissed L-1B Case: Mortgage Banking

MATTER OF P- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 4, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a three employee "[ m ]ortgage [b ]ank," seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a mortgage processor 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)(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 in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not established: (1) a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer; 
and (2) that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been employed abroad, 
and would be employed in the United States, in a position requiring specialized knowledge. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Petitioner and Beneficiary qualify under the pertinent regulations. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(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 managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge 
capacity. !d. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form I-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: 
Matter of P- Corp. 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph 
(l)(l)(ii)(G) ofthis section. 
· (ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the 
services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the. filing of the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position 
that was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the 
alien's prior education, training and employment qualifies him/her to perform 
the intended services in the United States; however the work in the United 
States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The Director denied the petition, in part, finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. To establish a "qualifying 
relationship" under the Act and the regulations, a petitioner must show that a beneficiary's foreign 
employer and the proposed U.S. employer (are the same employer (i.e. one entity with "branch" 
offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally section 
101(a)(15)(L) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
The pertinent regulations at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii) define the term "qualifying organization" and 
related terms as follows: 
(G) QualifYing organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or 
other legal entity which: 
(I) Meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the 
definitions of a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in 
paragraph (1)( 1 )(ii) of this section; 
(I) Parent means a fir111, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
(J) Branch means an operating division or office of the same organization housed 
in a different location. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of P- Corp. 
(K) Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent 
owns, directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the 
entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; 
or owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has 
equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 
less than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
(L) Affiliate means 
(1) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by 
the same parent or individual, or 
(2) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of 
individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately 
the same share or proportion of each entity. 
A. Evidence of Record 
On the L Classification Supplement, the Petitioner identified the Beneficiary's foreign employer as 
and indicated that the Beneficiary has been employed there since 
March 2013. 
1 The Petitioner stated it is a subsidiary of the foreign company. 
The initial evidence also included: the Petitioner's certificate ofincoq)oration filed on December 23, 
2005 in the State of Delaware; the foreign employer's confirmation of the Beneficiary's employment 
and assertion that it owns a majority interest in the Petitioner; and the Petitioner's undated letter 
claiming that as of August 26, 2015, the Beneficiary's foreign employer owned 50.1 percent of its 
outstanding shares and that owned the remaining 49.9 percent of its outstanding 
shares. 
In response to the Difector's request for evidence (RFE) on the issue of a qualifying relationship, the 
Petitioner submitted evidence of the foreign entity's incorporation in India on January 4, 2006, 
copies of auditor's reports on the foreign entity, and accounting notes to the foreign entity's financial 
statements for the years ending March 31, 2011, 2012, and 2014. These reports do not refer to the 
foreign entity's ownership of the Petitioner or provide any other information relevant to the claimed 
qualifying relationship. The Petitioner also submitted copies of its partial IRS Forms 1120, U.S. 
Corporation Income Tax Return, for the 2013 and 2014 years. The 2013 Form 1120 identified 
as the 100 percent owner of the Petitioner's voting stock on the Schedule G 
attached to the Form 1120.Z The Petitioner checked the box "no" on the 2014 Form 1120, Schedule 
1 The Petitioner claims, in response to the Director's request for evidence, that the Beneficiary began his employment 
with the foreign entity in June 2013. The Beneficiary's resume also indicates that he _began his employment with the 
foreign entity in June 2013. 
2 The record includes different spellings of this claimed shareholder's first name. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of P- Corp. 
,~ K, in response to the question asking if a foreign or domestic corporation or other entity owned, 
directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more of the Petitioner. The Petitioner checked the box "yes" on 
the 2014 Form 1120, Schedule K, in response to the question asking if an individual owned, directly 
or indirectly, 50 percent or more of the Petitioner. The record did not include a copy of the 
Petitioner's 2014 Schedule G attached to the Form 1120. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the "ownership structure percentages (%) are structured so that 
the Parent Company in India holds majority rule." The Petitioner submits a letter from its 
accountant dated March 29,2016, in which the accountant confirms that the foreign entity owns 50.1 
percent of the Petitioner and that owns the remaining 49.9 percent of the Petitioner. 
The accountant notes that he will amend the Petitioner's 2014 Form 1120 to reflect this ownership 
and that this information will also be incorporated into the Petitioner's 2015 Form 1120. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship 
with the foreign entity. ' 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control 
are the factors that must be 
examined in determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign 
entities for purposes of this visa classification. See Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 
593 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of 
Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r. 1982). In the context of this visa petition, ownership refers to 
the direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority 
to control; control means the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, 
management, and operations of an entity. Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are not 
sufficient evidence to determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a 
corporate entity. The' corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, 
and the minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings must also be examined to determine the 
total number of shares issued, the exact number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent 
percentage ownership and its effect on corporate control. Additionally, a petitioning company must 
disclose all agreements relating to the voting of shares, the distribution of profit, the management 
and direction ofthe subsidiary, and any other factor affecting actual control of thy entity. See Matter 
of Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362. Without full disclosure of all relevant documents, 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is unable to determine the elements of 
ownership and control. 
Here, the Petitioner identifies itself as a corporation authorized to issue 25,000,000 shares of 
common stock. The record, however, does not include evidence that this stock was issued in 2005 
when the Petitioner was incorporated, and if so in what amount and to whom. There is no evidence 
4 
,.Matter of P- Corp. 
in the record that any of the Petitioner's stock was issued to the foreign entity or was transferred to 
the foreign entity after the foreign entity was incorporated. The record does not include the 
I 
Petitioner's stock ledger, or evidence of any agreements relating to the voting of its outstanding 
shares, the distribution of profit, or the managemept and control of the Petitioner. The record does 
not include evidence of how the foreign entity acquired the claimed majority ownership in the 
Petitioner. "[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purppses of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 
1
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). The Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's foreign employer owns a majority interest in 
the Petitioner, is not supported by any documentary evidence of its ownership and control. 
Additionally, the letter submitted by the Petitioner's accountant on appeal does not discuss what 
documentary evidence he reviewed to confirm the Petitioner's ownership. While the Petitioner 
continues to assert on appeal that it is a majority-owned subsidiary of the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer, it does not submit corroborating documentary evidence that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer owns, directly or indirectly, more than half of the Petitioner and also controls the 
Petitioner. Without full disclosure of all stock certificates, agreements, and corporate documents 
establishing when and how the foreign entity acquired its claimed interest in the Petitioner, the 
Petitioner has not established a qualifying relationship 'with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
As the Petitioner emphasized on appeal, it must establish by a preponderance of evidence that ,it and 
the Beneficiary are qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 201 0). In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality. !d. The Petitioner has not submitted probative evidence 
establishing that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The next issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he has been employed abroad and will be employed in the 
United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
On the L Classification Supplement to the Form I-129, the Petitioner indicates it is seeking to 
classify the Beneficiary as an L-IB nonimmigrant. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1184( c )(2)(B), provides the statutory definition of specialized knowledge: 
For purposes of section 101 (a )(15)(L ), an alien is considered to be serving in a 
capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has a 
special knowledge of the company product and its application in international 
markets or has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the 
company. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)( 1 )(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge as: 
5 
Matter of P- Corp. 
[S]pecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization's 
product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management or other interests and 
its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or 
expertise in the organization's processes and procedures. 
A. Evidence ofRecord 
On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner claims it is a mortgage bank with three employees while also 
noting on the L Classification Supplement that it employs more than 50 individuals. The Petitioner 
also asserts on the L Classification Supplement that the Beneficiary has been employed by the 
foreign entity since March 2013. In an incomplete letter, dated August 26, 2015, the managing 
director of the foreign entity noted that the Beneficiary had been its full-time employee but left the 
space for' his initial employment date blank. In the same letter, the managing director stated: "we 
would like to utilize [the Beneficiary's] skills to strengthen our US presence. His specific roles and 
responsibilities are also enclosed. In summary, he is responsible for."3 
In a separate undated document, the Beneficiary is described as the manager, US operations, who is 
the "middle man between team India and our US bank. "4 The Petitioner emphasized that the 
Beneficiary is "well versed in English and US customs," and is able to "smooth the work/culture 
issues that come up in the banking world with our team." The Petitioner further noted that the 
Beneficiary "assures that team India understands the tasks at hand and that they are handled as 
Americans would expect their banking business to be handled." This document lists specific tasks 
for the manager, US operations, as follows: 
• Jr. Processors report to this individual for daily tasks, status, direction and 
grooming for their position[.] 
• Pipeline efficiency - interacts with each LO on status of files, items left to clear. 
Responsible for scheduling and meeting any and all milestones on files in timely 
fashion as not to delay a borrowers [sic] loan. 
• Jr. Under writing-skills for program guidelines and suggested feedback on files 
and placement of future loan on certain programs[.] 
• File submissions - this individual is responsible for scrubbing/QC checking each 
file that is sent b;.1ck from borrower. He scrutinizes these items and prepares for 
delivery to the lender. From there he is the key touchstone between his office and 
the lender. 
3 The letter does not list what the Beneficiary is responsible for. The letter includes several blank spaces or spaces 
marked with "xxxxx." 
4 The Petitioner does not clarify if these are the Beneficiary's proposed duties or his current duties. Subsequently, the 
Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary performs the same duties for both the foreign entity and the U.S. entity. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of P- Corp. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter, dated December 11, 2015, signed 
by its managing director. The managing director clarified that the Beneficiary had been working 
with the claimed parent company since June 2013, and prior to that time he had gained six years of 
experience in the U.S. mortgage industry. The managing director noted that the Beneficiary had 
previously worked as a junior underwriter for a bank and as a title examiner for a global services 
company in India. The managing director stated that the Beneficiary "possesses all the detailed 
knowledge of the processing of residential mortgages which is very complicated and involves 
various steps to get a file from origination to closure." The managing director stated further that the 
Beneficiary "is well versed with our processing methods, communication methods and most 
important our internal tool - - which we use to track various entities 
pipelines." He further noted that the Beneficiary has good relationships with his teammates, has 
good communication skills, and that his skills will help bridge the gap between clients and itself. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "has certain advanced or special skills in the 
training of new junior processors in quality control and procedures and processing of the company 
and holds a Bachelor's Degree (B.A.) in Commerce from India." The Petitioner claims that the 
Beneficiary' s "specialized knowledge has been learned throughout the many years of working in this 
particular field." The Petitioner notes that the foreign entity is involved in software publishing, 
consultancy, and supply, and submits an Internet printout from a third party website describing the 
foreign entity's activities. The Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary held a managerial position 
for the parent company in India from November 2013 to the present and that this position was 
managerial and involved specialized knowledge. 5 The Petitioner claims that since the "development 
of custom software is proprietary, the [B]eneficiary must possess specialized knowledge to do the 
job as well as supervise subordinates who themselves do not possess this specialized knowledge." 
The Petitioner asserts further that it has taken the Beneficiary many years to learn complex systems 
of custom software and software tailored to specific users. 
The Petitioner also submits a letter 
signed by the managing director of the foreign entity, dated April 
28, 2016. The managing director provides a lengthy narrative of the Beneficiary's duties which the 
Petitioner paraphrases in the brief submitted on appeal as follows: 
• Coordinate efforts of at least 5 junior mortgage processors at any given time. 
• Train new junior processors with processing 
knowledge and quality control. 
• Cross referencing a mortgage applicant's information provided by the customer. 
5 The record includes evidence that the Beneficiary entered the United States on August 8, 2014, and left the United 
States on January 4, 2015 . The Petitioner states on the L Classification Supplement that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment was interrupted only for vacations in the United States. The Beneficiary's passport shows an admission 
into India on January 6, 2015 , and another admission into the United States on March 12, 2015. The Beneficiary's initial 
position for the foreign entity , mortgage processor , began June 2013 and continued to November 2013, when he was 
promoted to Manager- US Mortgage Operations . Thus the Beneficiary held this claimed managerial position , which the 
Petitioner maintains included specialized knowledge, at most from November 2013 to August 2014 and then for another 
approximate two months from January 6, 2015 , to March 12, 2015. The total period of time he spent in the position is 
less than one year . 
7 
(b)(6)
. ~ . 
Matter of P- Corp. 
• Identify applicant's income, pay-stubs, and tax returns are consistent. 
• Reconcile potential discrepancies prior to submitting and [sic] mortgage loans. 
• Ensure high levels of' quality control are accomplished with the team. 
• Recommend the termination/firing of junior processors at his own discretion. 
• Uses program guideline,s and lender overlay requires specialized knowledge. 
• Identify critical items in loan which would cause the loan to be denied. 
• Maintain the quality of a file following underwriting review. 
• Able to use companies [sic] advanced proprietary programs/software which 
require specialized knowledge. 
In the Petitioner's letter submitted on appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's "position in 
the United States is identical to his position in India." The Petitioner also provides a lengthy 
narrative of the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. duties which is paraphrased, in part, in the brief 
submitted on appeal as follows: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• • 
• 
• 
• 
Manage sales pipelines for 10 loan officers and delegate responsibilities for a 
team of 5 processors who are required to report to him as subordinates. 
Mortgage Loan Originators (MLO) depend on him for discretion andjudgment. 
Beneficiary 
has advanced familiarity with guidelines and overlays . 
Familiarity with company's initial loan application via (data entry 
origination software)[.] 
Beneficiary audits and delivers to applicants via an (mortgage 
application disclosure tool)[.] 
[D]eveloped a system called privoloans.com that helps track the status of a file 
right from the time it comes to us through the processing stages. 
Rejects loan applications that do not meet compliance standards of industry . 
Differentiate ' between loan conditions meant to be fulfilled by processors, 
mortgage loan originators, and mortgage applicants. 
Position in the United States is similar to position in India because the company 
uses custom software and proprietary knowledge. 
Producing, retention, production, and compliance reports . 
Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of [E]xcel spreadsheet formulas . 
The Petitioner also points out that sample reports . are being submitted to show that the work is 
complex and requires specialized knowledge of its policies and procedures. In the Petitioner's letter 
submitted on appeal, the Petitioner notes that lenders use their own varying sets of lender overlays 
and underwriting guidelines and emphasizes that the Beneficiary has memorized hundreds of pages 
of these guidelines and overlays. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's acquisition of this 
knowledge through years of experience establishes the Beneficiary's managerial role and is the 
"foundation for his specialized knowledge, since this knowledge cannot be readily learned or 
acquired by another individual without significantly disrupting business." The Petitioner claims 
that 
the Beneficiary's advanced familiarity with guidelines and overl~ays and "practicing this advanced 
knowledge in real · situations requires a separate and distinct category of mortgage processor 
8 
Matter of P- Corp. 
knowledge." The Petitioner maintains that "when this advanced knowledge is consistently practiced 
without error and without risk to the sponsor," the individual is demonstrating capability that "is 
special or 'surpasses the usual"'. 
The Petitioner includes samples of Excel spreadsheet reports, and emphasizes that the Beneficiary is 
able to expand and improve upon these reports without being told to do so. 
The Petitioner asserts in the brief accompanying the appeal, that the Beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge was acquired after many years of experience working with the company and that the 
junior processors do not have the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge. The Petitioner claims that 
the Beneficiary possesses knowledge proprietary to the organization and that this knowledge 
involves special or advanced knowledge in the residential mortgage field. The Petitioner reiterates 
that the Beneficiary has advanced familiarity with guidelines and overlays of the company, has 
experience in the custom software and programs of the company, and that the knowledge cannot be 
learned overnight. The Petitioner also submits a chart showing that the Beneficiary acts as the 
primary contact for loan officers and mortgage lenders, and that the junior processors report to him. 
B. \Analysis 
Upon review, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or 
that he has been employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity as defined at 8 C.F:R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
In order to establish eligibility, a petitioner must show that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The statutory definition of 
specialized knowledge at section 214( c )(2)(B) of the Act is comprised of two equal but distinct 
subparts. First, an individual is considered to be employed in a capacity involving specialized 
knowledge if that person "has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in 
international markets." Second, an individual is considered to be serving in a capacity involving 
specialized knowledge if that person "has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and 
procedures of the company." See also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). The petitioner may establish 
eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong 
of the definition. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and 
type of evidence which establishes whether or not a beneficiary actually possesses specialized 
knowledge. USCIS cannot make a factual determination regarding a 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 natu~e 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 
beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of P- Corp. 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneficiary's 
knowledge is "special" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's 
knowledge against that of others. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge, the 
petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that a given beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held 
throughout the particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. The 
ultimate question is whether the petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance 
of the evidence that a given beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is,advanced or special, and that the 
beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 
Here, the Petitioner has provided general information regarding its business, noting that it provides 
back office loan processing services.6 The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's experience at the 
foreign entity provided the foundation of his specialized knowledge. Because "special knowledge" 
concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its application in 
international markets, the Petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the Beneficiary has 
knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly 
employed workers in the particular industry. 
When determining whether the Beneficiary has special knowledge, we look to the Petitioner's 
descriptions of this knowledge, including any internal tools, systems, and methodologies that are 
specific to the Petitioner, and the weight and type of evidence submitted in support of its claims. 
Here, the Petitioner initially suggested that the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge is based on 
knowing the English language, U.S. customs, and understanding the needs of American banking 
customers. The Petitioner, however, did not reference the software or "proprietary" knowledge used 
to perform these duties or otherwise state that he possesses specialized knowledge specific to the 
petitioning organization. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner adds that the Beneficiary 
"is well versed with our processing methods, communication methods and most 
important our 
internal tool - On appeal, the Petitioner adds that the Beneficiary is familiar 
with the company's initial loan application via a data entry origination software. The 
Petitioner does not explain why the initial record did not refer to any proprietary knowledge, this 
"internal tool" or third party software. 
Moreover, upon review, the Petitioner has neither explained nor documented its internal tools, 
systems, or 
methodologies, nor clarified what sets them apart from other loan processing businesses 
desiring to provide an error- and risk-free service to mortgage lenders. Although the Petitioner 
claims. that the foreign entity is involved in software publishing and consultancy, the record does not 
include any evidence of the specific software, tools, or systems created by the foreign entity and 
used by the Beneficiary or the Petitioner. For example, the Petitioner references its use of third party 
software, However, an Internet search reveals a third party, a U.S. company, created 
6 The record includes a one-year agreement entered into on December 3 I, 20 13, between the Petitioner and 
wherein the Petitioner agreed to provide mortgage processing back office services. The Petitioner's 
promotional materials indicate that itprovides 
mortgage and accounting services, and in 2014 entered into a partnership 
with in India to offer consulting services to Indian companies. 
10 
(b)(6)
/ 
Matter of P- Corp. 
this software in 1991. The Petitioner submits no evidence that it has modified or otherwise 
customized this widely available software. Similarly, the record includes no evidence of the foreign 
entity or the Petitioner's involvement in the creation or customization of the mortgage application 
disclosure tool1 created by Additionally, while the 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary is well-versed in its internal tracking tool, 
it does not provide further evidence regarding the development, use, or 
training needed to use the tool. The Petitioner does not indicate when this tool was developed and 
further references the Beneficiary's involvement in the development of the tool, without providing 
any supporting evidence, for the first time on appeal. , 
Without a detailed explanation 
or evidence of the foreign entity and the Petitioner's internal tools, 
systems, and methodologies, it cannot be concluded that they are particularly complex or different 
compared to those utilized by other loan processing companies, or that it would take a significant 
amount of time to train a loan processor to perform the ~uties required of the position. The 
Petitioner here also has not sufficiently explained the training or experience requirements deemed to 
be sufficient for mastery of its product, services, systems, and methodologies. Again, "going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings." Matter o.fSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
In the Petitioner's letter submitted on appeal, the Petitioner references the number of lender overlays 
and underwriting guidelines used throughout the industry and emphasizes that the Beneficiary has 
memorized hundreds of pages of these guidelines and overlays through his years of experience. 
However, the Beneficiary's knowledge, learned throughout the years working for other companies in 
the mortgage industry field, is not specialized knowledge of the Petitioner's product, services, 
methodologies, procedures, and processes. 7 The Petitioner has not submitted probative evidence that 
the Beneficiary's memorization and application of this third party and general industry information 
is special knowledge of its company product and services, and the application of those products and 
services in international markets. The record here does not include sufficient evidence 
demonstrating that the Beneficiary's knowledge is distinct among others of a kind, is distinguished 
by some unusual quality, or is otherwise uncommon or noteworthy. 8 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that it has taken the Beneficiary many years to learn complex 
systems of custom software and software tailored to specific users and that since the "development 
of custom software is proprietary, the [B]eneficiary must possess specialized knowledge to do the 
7 We again observe that the Beneficiary worked as a loan proces~or for the foreign entity from June 2013 to November 
2013, and then was promoted to a claimed managerial position, where he worked until his vacation in the United States 
from August 2014 to January 2015. Upon his return to India he then worked for an additional two months before his 
entry into the United States. Accordingly, the Beneficiary spent less than one year at the foreign entity in the claimed 
managerial capacity that formed the foundation for his claimed specialized knowledge. 
8 We have ~eviewed the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary consistently applies his familiarity with guidelines and 
overlays without error and risk to the sponsor, and that in doing so he demonstrates a capability that "is special or 
'surpasses the usual"'. However, the Beneficiary's reliability in performing his work error-free does not demonstrate 
specialized knowledge. 
II 
Matter of P- Corp. 
job as well as supervise subordi~ates who themselves do not po,ssess this specialized knowledge." 
However, neither the foreign entity nor the Petitioner submits evidence of the custom software or 
explains the development of any proprietary software. Further, the Petitioner has not identified any 
training undertaken by the Beneficiary or any of the foreign entity's employees upon their initial 
employment that is specific to the foreign entity or the Petitioner's product or service. The record 
shows that the Beneficiary immediately began work as a mortgage processor for the foreign entity 
and was promoted six months later, without benefit of any identified training, to a managerial 
position that the Petitioner claims involved specialized knowledge. Upon review of the totality of 
the record, there is no probative evidence demonstrating that the company's product, services, 
procedures, and policies are so complex that an experienced mortgage processor could not readily 
learn and apply them. The Beneficiary cannot be considered a specialized knowledge employee 
based solely on his education and his short tenure with the organization. 
The Petitioner also avers that the Beneficiary "has certain advanced or special skills in the training of 
new junior processors in quality control and procedures and processing" and thathis knowledge of 
the guidelines and overlays is advanced as compared to others. Because "advanced knowledge" 
concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, a petitioner may meet its burden 
through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge of or expertise in the organization's processes 
and procedures that is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity and understanding 
in comparison to other workers in the employer's operations. Such advanced knowledge must be 
supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart from the elementary or basic knowledge 
possessed by others in the industry or in the petitioning organization. 
In this matter, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentation to support its claim that the 
Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of the Petitioner's processes and procedures. As observed 
above, the Petitioner has not detailed its or the foreign entity's processes and procedures. While the 
Beneficiary has junior processors reporting to him and the Petitioner references that the Beneficiary 
will be responsible for training them, the record does not support a claim that these individuals will 
be trained on processes and procedures that are specific to either the foreign entity or the Petitioner. 
Again, the record does not include probative evidence of software, tools, or specific processes and 
procedures that are not commonly found within the industry. The Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence of any required training for any of its or the foreign entity's mortgage processors, junior or 
managerial. We also note that the Petitioner has not offered comparative evidence of the salaries, 
education, duties, and tenure of other similarly employed workers or otherwise submitted evidence 
that differentiates the Beneficiary's knowledge from the other employees within his department or 
with any other individuals within the foreign organization. 
We have reviewed the Beneficiary's contributions to the foreign entity and Petitioner in terms of 
analyses and improvement of Excel and other reporting processes. While the Petitioner emphasizes 
that the Beneficiary has been a valuable employee, the Petitioner has not explained how these 
contributions evidence special or advanced knowledge of the company's processes and procedures. 
This information is of little probative value without a specific comparison of the Beneficiary's work 
with his actual colleagues abroad and in the United States. The Petitioner does not explain or 
12 
Matter ofP- Corp. 
document how the Beneficiary was able to gain his level of knowledge, other than his years of 
experience within the mortgage industry. Although the Petitioner submits copies of Excel 
spreadsheets that provide useful information to the Petitioner, the Petitioner does not explain or 
document how the creation or use of these reports requires advanced knowledge of its processes and 
procedures. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties involve 
specialized knowledge, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the 
regulations. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), a:ff'd, 905 F.2d 
41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Upon review, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's knowledge 
of its processes and procedures is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and 
understanding in comparison to other workers in the employer's operations. 
While the Petitioner has not submitted probative evidence that the Beneficiary uses or possesses 
proprietary knowledge, we also note that possessing proprietary knowledge alone is not sufficient to 
demonstrate specialized knowledge. We note further that even if the Beneficiary's claimed 
specialized knowledge is proprietary, the Petitioner must also demonstrate that this proprietary 
knowledge is either "special" or "advanced" to satisfy the current standard, simply claiming that 
knowledge is proprietary will not satisfy the statutory standard. That is, the Petitioner must provide 
detailed and probative evidence to support its assertion that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced 
or uncommon in comparison to his colleagues within the organization or is uncommon or 
noteworthy within the industry. Here, the lack of specific comparison to the Beneficiary's 
colleagues and to other mortgage loan processors and supporting evidence demonstrating the 
Beneficiary's acquisition of the asserted knowledge leaves the record insufficient to establish his 
eligibility. While the Beneficiary may be a valuable employee, the Petitioner does not sufficiently 
address how the Beneficiary's work, training, or education elevates his knowledge to knowledge that 
is noteworthy or uncommon compared to the knowledge possessed by similarly qualified 
professionals in its industry or in its employ. 
Based on the evidence presented, the Petitioner has not established that the Bene-eyciary has 
specialized knowledge and that he has been and will be employed in a capacity involving specialized 
knowledge.9 For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
9 Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner consistently refers to the Beneficiary as holding a managerial 
position for the foreign entity and states on appeal that the proffered mortgage processer position also includes 
characteristics of a managerial position. However, the Petitioner's petition clearly states that it seeks to transfer the 
Beneficiary, a foreign employee with "specialized knowledge" to work temporarily in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. Further, as noted above, the evidence of record indicates that the Beneficiary held his claimed 
managerial position for less thim one year due to the considerable amount of time he spent in the United States since his 
promotion to that position. Finally, the record contains insufficient evidence to support a claim that the Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial capacity abroad, as it does not include evidence of the foreign entity's staffing levels or 
organizational structure to support its claim that the Beneficiary managed subordinate personnel. 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter ofP- Corp. 
IV. QUALIFYING ORGANIZATION 
Beyond the decision of the Director, the Petitioner here has also presented information that casts 
doubt on its status as a qualifying organization. The regulations define a qualifying organization as 
one doing business as an employer in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(2). "Doing 
business," is defined as the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods or services. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(H). A "shell company" that does not 
conduct business in a regular and continuous manner is not a qualifying organization. 
The Petitioner included a one-year agreement entered into on December 31, 2013, with 
wherein the Petitioner agreed to provide mortgage processing back office 
services. Although the record includes eight invoices for each month beginning May 2015 to 
December 2015, there is no probative evidence in the record that the agreement was extended. The 
invoices are issued by the foreign entity to the Petitioner for mortgage processing and miscellaneous 
services at a location that is different from the Petitioner's address. The record does not include 
evidence of the Petitioner's office or any physical premises at its claimed current address. The 
Petitioner also refers to its website's promotional materials as evidence that it "is a US HQ entity 
with a presence in India" and includes promotional information stating that 
has formed a company, identified as that processes loans for brokers 
and lending companies across the nation.
1
u We also observe that neither the 2013 IRS Form 1120 
nor the 2014 IRS Form 1120 indicates that the Petitioner has paid salaries and wages or compensated 
officers. 11 
This information raises questions regarding the Petitioner's status as a qualifying organization. We 
note here that the Petitioner's tax returns do not show that it paid rent and the record does not show 
that the Petitioner owns property. Here, although the foreign entity has issued invoices to the 
Petitioner, the invoices are addressed to a location different than the Petitioner's claimed 
headquarters address in Delaware. We also note the discrepancies in the Petitioner's number of 
claimed employees and the lack of probative evidence that the Petitioner actually employs 
individuals in the United States to perform loan processing services. The record does not include 
evidence of where the employees work. The Petitioner also acknowledges that it is a "US HQ 
entity" and submits information that a separate company, is performing 
loan processing services for the company that had hired the Petitioner for 
a one-year term, expiring December 31, 2014. While the Petitioner may have a minimal presence in 
the United States, it must establish that it is more than an agent or office of the qualifying 
organization. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(H) (defining the term "doing business"). 
10 The website indicates that is doing business as 
There is no evidence in the record that the Petitioner and Peoples Privo Processing are affiliated entities. 
11 The Petitioner does include a deduction for payroll taxes paid of $141 in 2013, and of $805 in 2014. However, the 
record does not include evidence of the Petitioner's actual employees or their roles within the business. The Petitioner 
has stated that it employs either three or fifty employees in the United States. 
14 
Matter of P- Corp. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner provided copies of its F orrns 1120 for the 2013 and 2014 years, 
showing the Petitioner had gross receipts and sales, these forms are not certified and the record 
includes no probative evidence that the Forms 1120 were filed with the IRS. It is also unclear if the 
Petitioner continues to be an active corporation. With the number of deficiencies and 
inconsistencies in the record regarding the Petitioner's business and business operations, we cannot 
find that it is a qualifying organization that is doing business in accordance with the regulations. For 
this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the 
burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not 
been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P- Corp., ID# 8842 (AAO Oct. 4, 2016) 
15