dismissed L-1B Case: Online Lottery Systems

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly mwarranted 
invasion of personal privacj 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJice ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: SRC 04 100 50039 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 2 7 2010 
IN RE: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Peny Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 100 50039 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
director subsequently granted the petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider the matter, and affirmed her 
decision to deny the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition to employ the beneficiary in the United States as an L-1B 
intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act ("the Act"), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Georgia corporation, is engaged in the 
~ - 
design, develo ment su ort and operation of worldwide online lotteries. It claims to be a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of located in Athens, Greece. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the 
position of software engineer for a period of two years. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge or that he has been or would be employed in a position requiring specialized 
knowledge. The director subsequently affirmed this decision on motion. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director's decision ignores the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of "specialized knowledge" and is inconsistent with numerous precedent decisions. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must demonstrate that the 
beneficiary, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has 
been employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized 
knowledge, for one continuous year by a qualifiing organization. The petitioner must also demonstrate that the 
beneficiary seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) further states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(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) of this 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 himher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
SRC 04 100 50039 
Page 3 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
Under section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Act, an alien is eligible for classification as a nonimmigrant if the alien, 
among other things, will be rendering services to the petitioning employer "in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge." Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(c)(2)(B), 
provides the statutory definition of specialized knowledge: 
For purposes of section 10l(a)(lS)(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. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge as: 
[Slpecial 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. 
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and that he has been and will be employed in a capacity requiring specialized 
knowledge. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker on February 20, 2004. The 
petitioner indicated on Form 1-129 that the beneficiary has been employed by its Greek parent company since 
February 10,2003. 
In a letter dated February 5, 2004, the petitioner stated that the U.S. company "offers lottery organizations a 
comprehensive and cost-effective turnkey product solution for integrating networks, terminal devices and 
software in one centrally controlled online communications network." The petitioner explains that it secures 
business through open bid procurement through a Request for Proposal process issued by each state in the 
United States, and noted that in July 2003, the company was selected to serve as the "new on-line lottery 
gaming system and related services contractor for the Nebraska Lottery." 
The petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed duties in the position of software engineer as follows: 
[The beneficiary] will be responsible for the implementation, development and management 
of the LOTOSTM on-line gaming computer system and full-function terminals. The LOTOSTM 
on-line gaming computer system and full-function terminals is the proprietary software 
developed by [the petitioner] specifically for [company] projects. He will analyze software 
requirements to determine feasibility of design within time and cost constraints, consult with 
[the petitioner's] hardware engineers and other engineering staff to evaluate interface between 
hardware and software, and operational and performance requirements of overall system. He 
will formulate and design software systems, develop and direct software system testing 
SRC 04 100 50039 
Page 4 
procedures, programming, and documentation. Additionally, he will consult with [the 
petitioner's] customers concerning maintenance of software, particularly users of the 
Nebraska Lottery project. 
The petitioner stated that the beneficiary has been employed since February 2003 as an application expert 
with the petitioner's parent company. The petitioner described the beneficiary's current duties as follows: 
He is responsible for implementing, developing and managing the LOTOSTM on-line gaming 
computer system and full-function terminals. In addition to his experience with [the foreign 
entity], he worked at Intrasoft S.A., an affiliate company in [the petitioner's group] from 
September of 1990 to May of 2000. He was employed as an application expert for OPAP 
lottery system and acquired a comprehensive knowledge of LOTOSTM operation system. [The 
beneficiary] has extensive experience in the development and implementation of computer 
software and will be able to provide the specialized computer software design expertise that 
our U.S. office requires for this current project. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's resume in support of the petition. He indicates that he has 
been working for the foreign entity's technical department as an application expert, and that he previously 
worked for Intrasoft S.A. for ten years as an application expert for "OPAP lottery system." The beneficiary 
states that, during this time, he "acquired a comprehensive experience of LOTOS operation and of the related 
lottery procedures." The beneficiary indicates that his technical experience includes VAX and Alpha digital 
systems, Microsoft Visual C, VAX C, VAX Cobol, VAX VMS, and Open VMS. 
The director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) on March 3, 2004. The director advised the 
petitioner that it must provide additional evidence to establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, 
noteworthy or distinguished by some unusual quality and not generally known by practitioners in the field. 
The director advised that the evidence must also establish that the beneficiary's knowledge of the processes 
and procedures of the petitioning company is apart from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by 
others. 
The director instructed the petitioner to explain what makes the beneficiary's knowledge different from that 
possessed by others who possess similar experience in the industry, to discuss the beneficiary's contribution to 
the petitioner's proprietary systems or products, and to indicate how many other employees have the same 
knowledge as the beneficiary with respect to the petitioner's products. The director noted that having 
knowledge of the petitioner's products and services alone is not sufficient to be considered "specialized 
knowledge," but rather the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is above and beyond that 
possessed by others in the company and in the industry as a whole. Finally, the director requested that the 
petitioner explain what type of training and/or processes are involved in preparing an individual for the 
position offered. 
In a response dated May 17, 2004, counsel for the petitioner explained that the petitioner's operating system, 
LOTOSTM, is unique to the petitioning group and "not available, known or accessible to any other lottery 
company in the industry." Counsel stated that LOTOSTM was initially developed by an affiliate of the foreign 
entity,., which is currently owned by the foreign entity. Counsel further stated: 
SRC 04 100 50039 
Page 5 
[The foreign entity] is the sole owner of the LOTOSTM operating system, holding multiple 
patents on its design and applications, and is the proprietary operating system designed solely 
for use in [the petitioner's] lottery software applications. The integrated lottery systems 
developed by [the petitioning group] rank among the most advanced and flexible systems 
available worldwide. The innovative LOTOSTM software application platform, designed and 
fully developed by the company utilizing state-of-the-art methodologies and tools, constitutes 
the core element of [the petitioner's] lottery systems. 
To protect the confidentiality and proprietary nature of LOTOSTM, [the foreign entity] is very 
strict about who is able to learn and become users of the LOTOSTM system. [The foreign 
entity] strictly allows only its computer programmers, software and electrical engineers to 
implement the LOTOSTM system on [the petitioner's] lottery operations throughout the world. 
These [company] employees are bound by comprehensive confidentiality agreements with 
[the foreign entity]. 
Counsel further stated that "only those individuals identified by [the foreign entity] as sufficiently competent 
professional computer programming, software or electrical engineers, and who are then subsequently trained 
by [the foreign entity's] engineering staff, are entrusted with the work of knowing, understanding, 
implementing, revising, or modifying LOTOSTM operating systems for [the foreign entity] and its 
subsidiaries." Counsel emphasized that specialized knowledge of the operating system is not readily available 
in the United States workforce. 
With respect to the beneficiary's qualifications and the purpose of his transfer to the United States, counsel 
stated: 
[The beneficiary] began his employment with [the petitioner's] group in 1992 with Intrasoft. 
He held the position of Application Expert and eventually became a Project manager. During 
his employment with Intrasoft, he was assigned to the research and development of the 
LOTOSTM operating system, and was integrally involved in every facet of its design from the 
outset. [The beneficiary], subsequently employed by [the foreign entity] after its purchase of 
the department of Intrasoft that developed LOTOSTM, is one of only two [foreign entity] 
personnel with sufficient knowledge and expertise encompassing the total LOTOSTM 
operating system to supervise and direct its implementation into [the petitioner's] lottery 
installations and operations in 26 countries, including the United States. . . . His training for 
this unique position of leadership is derived from the instrumental position he held during the 
research and development of the LOTOSTM operating system, and his ongoing involvement 
in its implementation internationally for [the foreign entity] since 1994. 
Counsel stated that the beneficiary "holds specialized knowledge of the LOTOSTM proprietary operating 
system and is essential to the successful operation and expansion of [the U.S. company]." 
The petitioner's response to the RFE included, among other documents, evidence of the petitioning group's 
corporate structure; an annual report for the petitioner's parent company; website documentation regarding the 
SRC 04 100 50039 
Page 6 
LOTOSTM operating system; and a press release dated December 15, 2003 announcing the contract between 
the petitioner and the Nebraska Lottery. 
The director denied the petition on June 1, 2004, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been or would be employed in a capacity requiring 
specialized knowledge. In denying the petition, the director observed that the beneficiary's duties do not 
appear to be significantly different from those of any other software engineers in the petitioner's firm, or from 
those of software engineers in the petitioner's industry at large. The director acknowledged the petitioner's 
statements that the position requires an individual with in-depth knowledge of the petitioner's proprietary 
LOTOSTM operation system, but found that the petitioner failed to establish that understanding of this system 
is indicative of specialized or advanced knowledge within the company. The director emphasized that "no 
evidence was submitted to establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy, or 
distinguished by some unusual quality and not generally known by practitioners in the field." The director 
concluded by finding that the petitioner failed to hrnish evidence sufficient to establish that the beneficiary's 
duties involve specialized knowledge or expertise that make him key personnel for the petitioning 
corporation. 
The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen and reconsider the denial of the petition on June 28, 
2004 On motion, the petitioner submitted a letter dated June 16, 2004 from State Tax 
Commissioner of the State of Nebraska. referenced the contract between the petitioner and the 
Nebraska Lottery, and stated: 
The integral operating system for the [petitioner's] online gaming system, LOTOSTM, is a 
proprietary software program, designed and wholly-owned by [the foreign entity]. Intrinsic to 
the terms of Nebraska's contract with [the petitioner], is the ongoing technical support 
provided by [the foreign entity's] personnel. Comparable technical knowledge and expertise 
is not available in the U.S. workforce. Consequently, we consider it essential that [the foreign 
entity's] personnel be readily afforded appropriate visa status to permit travel to and from [the 
petitioner's] U.S. Lottery contract sites, and, in particular, its Nebraska site. 
Counsel asserted that this statement, considered along with evidence previously submitted, supports the 
petitioner's assertions and serves as ample evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, 
noteworthy and not generally known by practitioners in the field. 
Counsel further stated: 
Both the petitioner and the State of Nebraska, which have vested interests in completing a 
multi-million dollar lottery project, have clearly stated that the knowledge [the beneficiary] 
possesses is not common throughout the industry. In fact, such knowledge of the LOTOSTM 
operating system is not common within the company itself. As set forth previously, [the 
beneficiary] is one of only two [company] personnel with sufficient knowledge and expertise 
encompassing the total LOTOSTM operating system to supervise and direct its 
implementation into [the petitioner's] lottery installations and operations in 26 countries, 
including the United States. 
SRC 04 100 50039 
Page 7 
The Service's own regulations define "specialized knowledge" as "knowledge possessed by 
an individual of the petitioning organization's product.. .and its application in international 
markets." The present petition almost reads like a case hypothetical for the Service's 
definition of specialized knowledge. The beneficiary, in addition to having attained a 
professional level degree, has been specifically trained by the petitioner's parent company in 
the use and implementation of a proprietary software. There are no U.S. workers readily 
available with a similar set of skills. The petitioner submits that the instant case presents a 
fact pattern that Congress envisioned when it enacted Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act. 
On August 2, 2004, the director affirmed the denial of the petition. The director emphasized that the 
petitioner had failed to submit any documentary evidence to differentiate the beneficiary's knowledge from 
that of others in the industry, and no evidence to support a finding that the beneficiary, as a software engineer, 
is considered key personnel within the organization. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director's decision ignores the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of specialized knowledge and "numerous precedent decisions." 
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has 
specialized knowledge or that he will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity as defined at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
Standard for Specialized Knowledge 
Looking to the language of the statutory definition, Congress has provided USCIS with an ambiguous definition 
of specialized knowledge. In this regard, one Federal district court explained the infeasibility of applying a 
bright-line test to define what constitutes specialized knowledge: 
This ambiguity is not merely the result of an unfortunate choice of dictionaries. It reflects the 
relativistic nature of the concept special. An item is special only in the sense that it is not 
ordinary; to define special one must first define what is ordinary. . . . There is no logical or 
principled way to determine which baseline of ordinary knowledge is a more appropriate reading 
of the statute, and there are countless other baselines which are equally plausible. Simply put, 
specialized knowledge is a relative and empty idea which cannot have a plain meaning. CJ: 
Westen, The Empty Idea ofEqualik 95 Harv.L.Rev. 537 (1982). 
1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F.Supp. 9, 14-15 (D.D.C., 1990).' 
' Although 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General was decided prior to enactment of the statutory definition of 
specialized knowledge by the Immigration Act of 1990, the court's discussion of the ambiguity in the legacy 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) definition is equally illuminating when applied to the definition 
created by Congress. 
SRC 04 100 50039 
Page 8 
While Congress did not provide explicit guidance for what should be considered ordinary knowledge, the 
principles of statutory interpretation provide some clue as to the intended scope of the L-1B specialized 
knowledge category. NLRB v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23, 484 U.S. 1 12, 123 (1 987) 
(citing INSv. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,107 S.Ct. 1207,94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987)). 
First, the AAO must look to the language of section 214(c)(2)(B) itself, that is, the terms "special" and 
"advanced." Like the courts, the AAO customarily hrns to dictionaries for help in determining whether a word in 
a statute has a plain or common meaning. See, e.g., In re A.H. Robins Co., 109 F.3d 965,967-68 (4th Cir. 1997) 
(using Webster's Dictionary for "therefore"). According to Webster's New College Dictionary, the word "special" 
is commonly found to mean "surpassing the usual" or "exceptional." Webster's New College Dictionary, 1084 
(3rd Ed. 2008). The dictionary defines the word "advanced" as "highly developed or complex" or "at a higher 
level than others." Id. at 17. 
Second, looking at the term's placement within the text of section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act, the AAO notes that 
specialized knowledge is used to describe the nature of a person's employment and that the term is listed among 
the higher levels of the employment hierarchy together with "managerial" and "executive" employees. Based on 
the context of the term within the statute, the AAO therefore would expect a specialized knowledge employee to 
occupy an elevated position within a company that rises above that of an ordinary or average employee. See 
1 756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. at 14. 
Third, a review of the legislative history for both the original 1970 statute and the subsequent 1990 statute 
indicates that Congress intended for USCIS to closely administer the L-1B category. Specifically, the original 
drafters of section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act intended that the class of persons eligible for the L-1 classification 
would be "narrowly drawn" and "carefully regulated and monitored" by USCIS. See generally H.R. Rep. No. 91- 
851 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750, 2754, 1970 WL 5815. The legislative history of the 1970 Act 
plainly states that "the number of temporary admissions under the proposed 'L' category will not be large." Id. In 
addition, the Congressional record specifically states that the L-1 category was intended for "key personnel." 
See generally, id. The term "key personnel" denotes a position within the petitioning company that is "[olf 
crucial importance." Webster S New College Dictionary 620 (3rd ed., Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing 
Co. 2008). Moreover, during the course of the sub-committee hearings on the bill, the Chairman specifically 
questioned witnesses on the level of skill necessary to qualify under the proposed "L" category. In response 
to the Chairman's questions, various witnesses responded that they understood the legislation would allow 
"high-level people," "experts," individuals with "unique" skills, and that it would not include "lower 
categories" of workers or "skilled craft workers." See H.R. Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. Comm., Immigration 
Act of 1970: Hearings on H.R. 445,91" Cong. 21 0,2 18,223,240,248 (Nov. 12, 1969). 
Neither in 1970 nor in 1990 did Congress provide a controlling, unambiguous definition of "specialized 
knowledge," and a narrow interpretation is consistent with so much of the legislative intent as it is possible to 
determine. H. Rep. No. 91-851 at 6, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2754. This interpretation is consistent with legislative 
history, which has been largely supportive of a narrow reading of the definition of specialized knowledge and the 
L-1 visa classification in general. See 1756, Inc, v. Attorney General, 745 F.Supp. at 15-16; Boi Na Braza 
Atlanta, LLC v. Upchurch, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 2372846 at *4 (N.D.Tex., 2005), afSd 194 
Fed.Appx. 248 (5th Cir. 2006); Fibermaster, Ltd. v. I.N.S., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1990 WL 99327 (D.D.C., 
SRC 04 100 50039 
Page 9 
1990); Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Action 00-2977-LFO (D.D.C. April 6, 2001)(on file with 
AAO). 
Further, although the Immigration Act of 1990 provided a statutory definition of the term "specialized 
knowledge" in section 214(c)(2) of the Act, the definition did not generally expand the class of persons eligible 
for L-1B specialized knowledge visas. Pub.L. No. 101-649, 5 206(b)(2), 104 Stat. 4978, 5023 (1990). Instead, 
the legislative history indicates that Congress created the statutory definition of specialized knowledge for the 
express purpose of clarifying a previously undefined term from the Immigration Act of 1970. H.R. Rep. 101- 
723(I) (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6749, 1990 WL 200418 ("One area within the L visa that 
requires more specificity relates to the term 'specialized knowledge.' Varying interpretations by INS have 
exacerbated the problem."). While the 1990 Act declined to codify the "proprietary knowledge" and "United 
States labor market" references that had existed in the previous agency definition found at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) (1988), there is no indication that Congress intended to liberalize its own 1970 definition of 
the L- 1 visa classification. 
If any conclusion can be drawn from the enactment of the statutory definition of specialized knowledge in section 
2 14(c)(2)(B), it would be based on the nature of the Congressional clarification itself. By not including any strict 
criterion in the ultimate statutory definition and further emphasizing the relativistic aspect of "special knowledge," 
Congress created a standard that requires USCIS to make a factual determination that can only be determined on a 
case-by-case basis, based on the agency's expertise and discretion. Rather than a bright-line standard that would 
support a more rigid application of the law, Congress gave the INS a more flexible standard that requires an 
adjudication based on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. CJ: Ponce-Leiva v. Ashcroft, 33 1 F.3d 
369,377 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89,91 (9th Cir. 1988)). 
To determine what is special or advanced, USCIS must first determine the baseline of ordinary. As a 
baseline, the terms "special" or "advanced" must mean more than simply "skilled" or "experienced." By 
itself, work experience and knowledge of a firm's technically complex products will not equal "special 
knowledge." See Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. 49, 53 (Comm. 1982). In general, all employees can 
reasonably be considered "important" to a petitioner's enterprise. If an employee did not contribute to the 
overall economic success of an enterprise, there would be no rational economic reason to employ that person. 
An employee of "crucial importance" or "key personnel" must rise above the level of the petitioner's average 
employee. In other words, specialized knowledge generally requires more than a short period of experience; 
otherwise special or advanced knowledge would include every employee in an organization with the 
exception of trainees and entry-level staff. If everyone in an organization is specialized, then no one can be 
considered truly specialized. Such an interpretation strips the statutory language of any efficacy and cannot 
have been what Congress intended. 
Considering the definition of specialized knowledge, it is the petitioner's, not USCIS's, burden to articulate 
and prove that the beneficiary possesses "special" or "advanced" knowledge. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 11 84(c)(2)(B). USCIS cannot make a factual determination regarding the beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of the claimed 
specialized knowledge, describe how such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain 
how and when the beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
SRC 04 100 50039 
Page 10 
Once the 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. A 
petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge of the processes and procedures of 
the company must be supported by evidence describing and distinguishing that knowledge from the 
elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. Because "special" and "advanced" are comparative 
terms, the petitioner should provide evidence that allows USCIS to assess the beneficiary's knowledge 
relative to others in the petitioner's workforce or relative to similarly employed workers in the petitioner's 
specific industry. 
Analysis 
In examining the specialized knowledge of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's description of 
the job duties and the weight of the evidence supporting any asserted specialized knowledge. See 8 C.F.R. 
fj 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a detailed job description of the services to be performed sufficient to 
establish specialized knowledge. Id. Merely asserting that the beneficiary possesses "special" or "advanced" 
knowledge will not suffice to meet the petitioner's burden of proof. 
Upon review, the petitioner in this case has failed to establish either that the beneficiary's position in the 
United States requires an employee with specialized knowledge or that the beneficiary has specialized 
knowledge. The petitioner indicates that, as a software engineer, the beneficiary has been and would be 
implementing, developing and managing the LOTOSTM online gaming computer system and full-function 
terminals, including duties related to software requirements analysis, testing, programming, documentation 
and maintenance of the software. At the time of filing, the petitioner simply stated that the LOTOSTM system 
is proprietary and that the beneficiary "has extensive experience in the development and implementation of 
software." The petitioner did not identify with specificity any previous projects on which the beneficiary has 
worked or any special or advanced duties he has performed, nor did the petitioner offer any information that 
might distinguish the LOTOSTM system from products offered by other on-line gaming system providers. The 
duties described might reasonably describe the general duties of any software engineer working in the 
petitioner's industry. 
Furthermore, although the petitioner provided a copy of the beneficiary's resume, the information contained 
therein sheds no additional light on what constitutes his specialized knowledge. The beneficiary listed a 
number of computer skills and technical proficiencies, none of which are specific to the petitioning 
organization. The beneficiary's resume indicates that he has been employed by the foreign entity for one year 
in the three years preceding the filing of the petition as an "application expert" in the technical department, 
but that is the extent of the information offered regarding the beneficiary's period of qualifying employment 
abroad. 
Accordingly, the director reasonably requested further evidence to establish that the beneficiary's knowledge 
is not generally known by practitioners in the field, and an explanation as to what distinguishes the petitioner's 
products from others that are similar in the industry. The director also requested that the petitioner explain the 
beneficiary's contribution to creating the LOTOSTM system and identify the number of employees who 
possess similar knowledge. 
SRC 04 100 50039 
Page 11 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity's affiliate 
as an application engineer and project manager, "assigned to the research and development of the LOTOSTM 
operating system," and that he was "integrally involved in every aspect of its design." This information 
appears to be inconsistent with statements made at the time of filing indicating that the beneficiary was 
employed as an application expert for the "OPAP lottery system" while employed by the foreign entity's 
affiliate from 1990 to 2000. Although the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary "acquired a comprehensive 
knowledge of LOTOSTM," there was nothing in the initial evidence to suggest that the beneficiary was 
"integrally involved in every aspect" of the LOTOSTM system design, or that he ever served as a project 
manager responsible for its development. The petitioner also noted for the first time in response to the RFE 
that the beneficiary's duties in the United States would involve supervising and directing the implementation 
of LOTOSTM for the Nebraska Lottery project in the United States, and serving in a "unique position of 
leadership." As discussed above, the duties described at the time of filing were those of a software engineer, 
with no suggestion of any leadership or supervisory role in the project. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). A petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. 
See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). 
The petitioner also reiterated that the LOTOSTM system is proprietary to the petitioner's group of companies, 
and that knowledge of such system is confined to the foreign entity's computer programmers, software and 
electrical engineers. In an attempt to distinguish the beneficiary from this pool of employees, the petitioner 
emphasized that the beneficiary "is one of only two" foreign personnel "with sufficient knowledge and 
expertise encompassing the total LOTOSTM operating system." The petitioner offered no explanation as to 
what criteria it used to quantify what is considered "sufficient knowledge," what knowledge would be 
encompassed by "the total LOTOSTM operating system," or how the beneficiary's knowledge differs from that 
of other computer programmers and engineers. Given that the beneficiary's entire employment history with 
the petitioning organization has been presented inconsistently and with extreme brevity, the AAO finds 
insufficient support for the petitioner's statement that the beneficiary is one of only two people capable of 
performing the proposed duties as a software engineer for the U.S. assignment. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
A critical question before the AAO is whether the beneficiary's knowledge of and experience with the 
petitioner's proprietary LOTOSTM system alone constitutes specialized knowledge. While the current statutory 
and regulatory definitions of "specialized knowledge" do not include a requirement that the beneficiary's 
knowledge be proprietary, the petitioner cannot satisfj the current standard merely by establishing that the 
beneficiary's purported specialized knowledge is proprietary. The knowledge must still be either "special" or 
"advanced." As discussed above, the elimination of the bright-line "proprietary" standard did not, in fact, 
significantly liberalize the standards for the L-1B visa classification. 
Reviewing the precedent decisions that preceded the Immigration Act of 1990, there are a number of 
conclusions that were not based on the superseded regulatory definition, and therefore continue to apply to the 
SRC 04 100 50039 
Page 12 
adjudication of L-1 B specialized knowledge petitions. In 198 1, the INS recognized that "[tlhe modem 
workplace requires a high proportion of technicians and specialists." The agency concluded that: 
Most employees today are specialists and have been trained and given specialized knowledge. 
However, in view of the [legislative history], it can not be concluded that all employees with 
specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are eligible for classification as 
intracompany transferees. The House Report indicates the employee must be a "key" person 
and associates this employee with "managerial personnel." 
Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. at 1 19-20. 
In a subsequent decision, the INS looked to the legislative history of the 1970 Act and concluded that a "broad 
definition which would include skilled workers and technicians was not discussed, thus the limited legislative 
history available therefore indicates that an expansive reading of the 'specialized knowledge' provision is not 
warranted." Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 5 1. The decision continued: 
[I]n view of the House Report, it cannot be concluded that all employees with any level of 
specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are eligible for classification as 
intra-company transferees. Such a conclusion would permit extremely large numbers of 
persons to qualify for the "L-1" visa. The House Report indicates that the employee must be 
a "key" person and "the numbers will not be large." 
Id. at 53. 
According to the reasoning of Matter of Penner, work experience and knowledge of a firm's technically 
complex products, by itself, will not equal "special knowledge." USCIS must interpret specialized knowledge 
to require more than fundamental job skills or a short period of experience. An expansive interpretation of 
specialized knowledge in which any experienced employee would qualify as having special or advanced 
knowledge would be untenable, since it would allow a petitioner to transfer any experienced employee to the 
United States in the L-1B classification. 
The proprietary specialized knowledge in this matter is stated to include LOTOSTM which is described on the 
petitioner's website as "an integrated, distributed information system, designed to support Wagering Games 
and Lottery Operations." As noted above, although requested by the director, the petitioner has opted not to 
provide any detailed technical information regarding its LOTOSTM product, nor has it offered any information 
as to how the product differs from similar products offered by other companies in the lottery and gaming 
industry. The petitioner indicates that its computer programmers, software and electrical engineers are 
"trained by [the foreign entity's] engineering staff' before they are entrusted with working with the product, 
and thus, no U.S. workers have the required knowledge of the system. However, the petitioner has not 
specified the amount or type of training its technical staff members receive in the LOTOSTM system and 
therefore it cannot be concluded that the technology is particularly complex or different compared to that 
utilized by other companies in the industry, or that it would take a significant amount of time to train an 
experienced software engineer who had no prior experience with the petitioner's family of companies. Again, 
SRC 04 100 50039 
Page 13 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soff;ci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
In addition, the record is devoid of evidence that the beneficiary himself completed any training with respect 
to the LOTOSTM system, and, as discussed above, the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary was integral to the 
development of the system from its inception is not supported by any evidence. The petitioner has neither 
articulated nor documented how specialized knowledge is typically gained within the organization, nor 
explained how and when the beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
The minimal documentary evidence on record suggests that the petitioner's LOTOSTM system, while highly 
successful and valuable to the petitioner, is based on industry standard technology that can be readily learned 
by employees who otherwise possess the requisite technical background in software and systems 
development. For this reason, the petitioner has not established that knowledge of its proprietary product 
alone constitutes specialized knowledge. 
In addition, even assuming arguendo that the beneficiary's familiarity with the LOTOSTM system alone could 
be considered "specialized knowledge," it has not been established that the beneficiary's knowledge of the 
product is advanced or that an advanced knowledge of the product is required to perform the duties of a 
software engineer in the United States. The evidence submitted at the time of filing suggested that the 
beneficiary has been and would be a software engineer with duties that are typical of that position within the 
company. Moreover, the record contains no detailed description of the duties performed by the beneficiary 
during his qualifying year of employment abroad. 
All employees can be said to possess some uncommon skill or experience to some degree. Moreover, the 
proprietary qualities of the petitioner's process or product do not establish that any knowledge of this process 
is "specialized." Rather, the petitioner must establish that qualities of the unique process or product require 
this employee to have knowledge beyond what is common in the industry. This has not been established in 
this matter. The fact that other workers may not have the same level of experience with one aspect of the 
petitioner's product is not enough to establish the beneficiary as an employee possessing specialized 
knowledge. As discussed above, there is no evidence to support the petitioner's assertion that only two 
engineers in the entire petitioning organization are familiar with the "total LOTOSTM operating system." 
While the AAO recognizes that the beneficiary was employed by an affiliate of the foreign entity for a 
considerable number of years, he cannot be considered to have specialized knowledge based on years of 
experience alone. The petitioner's failure to describe the beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity 
precludes a finding that he possesses knowledge that is specialized or advanced. 
It is appropriate for USCIS to look beyond the stated job duties and consider the importance of the 
beneficiary's knowledge of the business's product or service, management operations, or decision-making 
process. Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. at 120 (citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. at 618 and Matter of 
LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec, at 816). As stated by the Commissioner in Matter of Penner, when considering 
whether the beneficiaries possessed specialized knowledge, "the LeBlanc and Raulin decisions did not find 
that the occupations inherently qualified the beneficiaries for the classifications sought." 18 I&N Dec. at 52. 
Rather, the beneficiaries were considered to have unusual duties, skills, or knowledge beyond that of a skilled 
worker. Id. 
SRC 04 100 50039 
Page 14 
The AAO acknowledges that the specialized knowledge need not be narrowly held within the organization in 
order to be considered "advanced." However, it is equally true to state that knowledge will not be considered 
"special" or "advanced" if it is universally or even widely held throughout a company. If all similarly 
employed workers within the petitioner's organization receive essentially the same training, then mere 
possession of knowledge of the petitioner's proprietary system or product does not rise to the level of 
specialized knowledge. The L-1B visa category was not created in order to allow the transfer of all 
employees with any degree of knowledge of a company's processes. If all employees are deemed to possess 
"special" or "advanced" knowledge, then that knowledge would necessarily be ordinary and commonplace. 
The petitioner has not successhlly demonstrated that the beneficiary's knowledge of the petitioner's products, 
processes and procedures is advanced compared to other similarly employed workers within the organization. 
All employees can be said to possess distinct skill sets to some degree; however, a skill set that can be easily 
imparted to another similarly educated and generally experienced software engineer is not "specialized 
knowledge." The petitioner must establish that qualities of the petitioner's processes, procedures, and 
technologies require this employee to have knowledge beyond what is common in the industry. This has not 
been established in this matter. 
According to the reasoning of Matter of Penner, work experience and knowledge of a firm's technically complex 
products, by itself will not equal "special know~ed~e."~ An expansive interpretation of specialized knowledge in 
which any experienced employee would qualify as having special or advanced knowledge would be untenable, 
since it would allow a petitioner to transfer any experienced employee to the United States in L-1B classification. 
The term "special" or "advanced" must mean more than experienced or skilled. In other terms, specialized 
knowledge requires more than a short period of experience, otherwise, "special" or "advanced" knowledge would 
include every employee with the exception of trainees and recent recruits. 
The AAO does not dispute the possibility that the beneficiary is a skilled and experienced employee who has 
been, and would be, an asset to the petitioner. However, as explained above, the record does not distinguish 
the beneficiary's knowledge as more advanced than the knowledge possessed by other people employed by 
the petitioning organization or by workers employed elsewhere. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that 
the beneficiary's training, work experience, or knowledge of the company's processes is more advanced than 
the knowledge possessed by others employed by the petitioner, or that the petitioner's products are 
substantially different from those developed by other companies in the petitioner's industry. The petitioner has 
failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is any more advanced or special than the knowledge 
held by a skilled worker. See Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 52. 
2 As observed above, the AAO notes that the precedent decisions that predate the 1990 Act are not categorically 
superseded by the statutory definition of specialized knowledge, and the general issues and case facts themselves 
remain cogent as examples of how the INS applied the law to the real world facts of individual adjudications. 
USCIS must distinguish between skilled workers and specialized knowledge workers when making a 
determination on an L-1B visa petition. The distinction between skilled and specialized workers has been a 
recurring issue in the L-1B program and is discussed at length in the INS precedent decisions, including Matter of 
Penner. See 18 I&N Dec. at 50-53. (discussing the legislative history and prior precedents as they relate to the 
distinction between skilled and specialized knowledge workers). 
SRC 04 100 50039 
Page 15 
The legislative history for the term "specialized knowledge" provides ample support for a restrictive 
interpretation of the term. In the present matter, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
should be considered a member of the "narrowly drawn" class of individuals possessing specialized 
knowledge. See 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, supra at 16. The record does not establish that the 
beneficiary has specialized knowledge or that the position offered with the United States entity requires 
specialized knowledge. Accordingly, the petition will be denied. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.