dismissed L-1B Case: Software

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 0 8 2014 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department ofHomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrativ e Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice ofAppeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with. the AAO. 
Thank you, 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form 1-129), seeking to classify the 
beneficiary as an L-1B nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, an Indiana corporation, 
states that it operates as a contact center automation, unified communications, and business process 
automation software business. The petitioner claims to be the parent office of Inc. 
(Malaysia Branch Office), located in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia . The petitioner s~eks to transfer the 
beneficiary to the United States to serve in a specialized knowledge capacity, as a Senior Field Engineer, for a 
period of three years. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and that the beneficiary has been employed abroad, and would be employed in the United 
States, in a position that requires specialized knowledge. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that the director relied on 
the wrong occupational classification and failed to properly consider all of the evidence submitted by the 
petitioner. Counsel submits a brief in support of the appeal. 
I. THE LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically; a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within the three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the U.S. temporarily to continue rendering his or her 
services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate. 
If the beneficiary will be serving the United States employer in a managerial or executive capacity, a qualified 
beneficiary may be classified as an L-1A nonimmigrant alien. If a qualified beneficiary will be rendering 
services in a capacity that involves "specialized knowledge," the beneficiary may be classified as an L-1B 
nonimmigrant alien. !d. 
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: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[S]pecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the pehttoning 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 regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form I-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 (1)(1)(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 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. THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether the beneficiary has been employed abroad, and would be employed in t.he 
United States, in a position that requires specialized knowledge. 
A. Facts 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on June 19, 2013. The petitioner 
indicated on the Form 1-129 that it currently has 1,400 U.S. employees and a gross annual income of 
$237 million. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary will be working as a Senior Field Engineer. On the 
Form 1-129 Supplement L, where asked to describe the beneficiary's duties abroad for the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition, the petitioner stated: 
07/2011 - Present. in Malaysia. Contractor and 
Technology Consultant. Leading project members to deliver projects. . Assess customer 
needs and provide advice regarding product optimization. Install and configure call center 
solutions. 
07/2009 - 07/2011. Inc. in Malaysia. Associate System Engineer 
and System Engineer. Customized, integrated and deployed proprietary software for 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
cpstomers. Provide sales and technical support Contributed to protocol knowledge to the 
team and provided training for new employees. Identify problems' root cause through issue 
reproducing and testing. Resolve and respond to customer questions. 
On the Form 1-129 Supplement L, where asked to describe the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United 
States, the petitioner stated: 
Senior Field Engineer. [The beneficiary] will be responsible for delivering product solutions 
for large customers, strategic accounts, and partners. She will be responsible for developing a 
high level of expertise across additional product lines and will continue to deploy 
Her position will include duties within technical support 
and sale support. She will work with the Project Manager to successfully deliver projects to 
clients, which includes technical implementation activities as well as post-sale transition for 
key customers. She will be required to prepare and review detailed functional requirements 
specification documentation and provide post sale support within the standards established by 
the Product and Service Offer. She will lead technical engineering activities within a project. 
She will also develop test plans and project validation. She will also regularly communicate 
project status by preparing and distributing weekly engagement issue logs and Project Status 
Reports. She will be responsible for resolving and responding to customer requests and 
providing escalation support to clients, as needed. Within the technical support portion of her 
position, she will be required to identify engagement-related problem areas and solve the 
issues. She will also be required to provide technical training - both internally and 
externally. [The beneficiary] will use her advanced, specialized knowledge of our proprietary 
software and company's procedures to fulfill the duties of this role. 
In its letter of support, the petitioner, described the beneficiary's experience and specialized knowledge as 
follows: 
From July 2009 through June 2010, [the beneficiary] was employed as an Associate 
System Engineer within the Software Support Services Department of [the petitioner] in 
Malaysia. As an Associate System Engineer, she was responsible for troubleshooting and 
identifying the root cause of problems and was required to test, recreate and verify the 
problems. In this position, [the beneficiary] was introduced to the Petitioner's patented 
product and became an certified engineer in 
September 2009. With this certification, [the beneficiary] was able to work on significant 
service and deployment assignments related to through which she 
gained extensive specialized knowledge of the product during the course of her 
employment. To simplify and automate the product functions for our customers, [the 
beneficiary] was required to customize, integrate and install software that uses stage­
based predicting based upon the patented algorithm ... which elevates agent productivity 
and contact success rates. Such experience and specialized knowledge can only be 
gained by hands-on and advanced work with the Petitioner's product. 
In July 2010, [the beneficiary] was promoted to the position of System Engineer, where 
she worked until July 2011. In this position, [the beneficiary] continued to gain advanced 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
knowledge of through her responsibilities of 
deployment, sales support and technical support. This advanced knowledge of this 
proprietary product was gained through mentor training, site visits and remote work 
performed for customers. This level of experience can only be obtained through 
employment within the [petitioner] family of companies, as is a 
proprietary product developed exclusively by the [petitioner] ls 
complex and the integration of the software for a customer is even more complicated. 
Given the complexity of the program and the business that depends upon it, this position 
cannot be filed [sic] by a novice engineer. Due to the increased demand for this product 
and the increased business, we have actively recruited for this position for the last six 
months and have been unable to find a qualified candidate. 
In its letter of support, the petitioner described the proposed position in the United States as follows: 
The Petitioner has offered [the beneficiary] temporary, full-time employment as Senior 
Field Engineer at headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana. In this position, [the beneficiary] 
will be responsible for delivering product solutions for large customers, strategic 
accounts, and partners. She will be responsible for developing a high level of expertise 
across additional product lines and will continue to deploy Her 
position will include duties within technical support and 
sale support. 
In her role as Senior Field Engineer, she will work . with the Project Manager to 
successfully deliver projects to customers, which includes technical implementation 
activities as well as post-sale transition for key customers. She will be required to 
prepare and review detailed functional requirements specification documentation and 
provide post-sale support within the standards established by the Product and Service 
Offer. She will lead technical engineering activities within a project. She will also 
develop test plans and project validation. She will also regularly communicate project 
status by preparing and distributing weekly engagement issue logs and Project Status 
Reports. She will be responsible for resolving and responding to customer requests and 
providing escalation support to customers, as needed. Within the technical support 
portion of her position, she will be required to identify engagement-related problem areas 
and solve the issues. She will also be required to provide technical training - both 
internally and externally. [The beneficiary] will use her advanced, specialized 
knowledge of our proprietary software and company's procedures to fulfill the duties of 
this role. 
The petitioner went on to explain the impact of hiring a new employee to perform the services required by the 
U.S. position as follows: 
The only way the Petitioner can deliver on these new contracts is to add an additional 
Senior Field · Engineer with the skills and specialized knowledge of the product to 
immediately develop and deploy requirements. As described above, the Petitioner has 
actively recruited for this position for several months; but because the 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
product is patent-protected, it has been impossible to find any applicants with the 
requisite experience. The Petitioner estimates it would take a minimum of two (2) years 
to train a Field Engineer with no [petitioner] experience to become familiar enough with 
its products and technology, and then an additional one (1) year to acquire sufficient 
specialized knowledge with the product to perform the duties required 
for this position. When its recruitment efforts were unsuccessful, the Petitioner 
additionally considered whether it could train current engineers assigned to other groups 
on the product, but the Petitioner estimates it would take one (1) year 
or more to train such professionals. With its current team completely leveraged and new 
contracts finalized at such a rapid pace, the Petitioner must employ an experienced 
engineer with specific knowledge to meet the contract deliverables. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity verifying the beneficiary's employment abroad and 
describing her duties as the petitioner described above. 
The petitioner submitted copies of the beneficiary's · "Degree of Bachelor of Engineering 
(Telecommunication) ," conferred on August 12, 2009, and the following certificates: 
dated July 25, 2012; 
dated November 21-25, 2011; 
. dated August 31 to September 4, 2009; dated August 24-28, 
2009; and dated August 10-21, 2009. 
The petitioner submitted a document titled, Senior Field Engineer Job Description, describing the 
beneficiary's proposed position in the United States as follows: 
70% . 
• Work with the Project Manager to successfully deliver pFojects 
• Technical implementation activities, including post-sale transition for key 
customers 
• Prepare and review functional requirement specification documentation 
• Provide post sale support within the standards established by the Product and 
Service Offer 
• Lead technical engineering activities 
within a project 
• Develop test plans and project validation 
• Communicate project status by preparing and distributing weekly engagement 
issue logs and Project Status Reports 
• Resolve and respond to customer requests 
• Provide escalation support 
Technical Support 20% 
• Identify engagement-related problem areas and solve the issues 
• Provide technical training- both internally and externally 
• Assist the support group by performing service calls and maintenance activities, 
as required 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Sales Support 5% 
• Provide advanced technical pre-sales support for sales opportunities when the 
depth or scope of the technical expertise required exceeds the abilities of the 
sales team 
Administration 5% 
• Time sheets, expense reports, engagement issue logs and project-related forms 
• Update internal best practice documents 
Continuing Education Up to 80 hours per year 
• Stay abreast of changing technology through manufacturer training, lab development 
and industry standard certifications 
The petitioner also submitted evidence of its patent obtained for on October 12, 2004. 
On June 28, 2013, the director issued a request for additional evidence ("RFE"), instructing the petitioner to 
submit evidence of the beneficiary's specialized knowledge position abroad, evidence that she possesses 
specialized knowledge, and evidence that the proposed position in the United States required specialized 
knowledge. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a new letter where it describes in more detail the 
product. The petitioner states that, due to the proprietary nature of its product and the lack of exposure 
to outside engineers, the beneficiary is the only candidate with the skills and knowledge necessary to. fill the 
proposed position in the United States. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner described the beneficiary's specialized knowledge position abroad as 
follows: 
Job Duties Abroad. As Senior Systems Engineer for the Petitioner's branch office, more than 
80% of fthe beneficiary's] time was dedicated to job duties that required the use of 
[The beneficiary's] responsibilities included researching, resolving and 
responding to technical issues. This required in-depth technical 
knowledge of the product, its complex features, and the interaction of the product with 
clients' individual systems. In this specialized knowledge position, [the beneficiary] 
responded to system related questions through e-mail, chat, and phone, which required her to 
address and "translate" complex information into layman's terms for . customers. Such 
responses could only be accomplished with a clear understanding and advanced knowledge of 
the product and systems. [The beneficiary] was also required to analyze customers' systems, 
identify solutions and troubleshoot problems, . including hardware, software and system 
functionality for [The beneficiary] designed, developed, documented, 
analyzed and tested systems to enhance quality or efficiency of support service with a team of 
engineers. As Senior Systems Engineer, [the beneficiary] mentored junior systems engineers 
regarding as it was integrated with customers' software and resolved 
customers' problems. She was also responsible for providing accurate and technical solutions 
for user problems with 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
In addition to honing her extensive knowledge [of] as described above, 
[the beneficiary] spent the remaining 20% of her time with work related to travel and 
continuing legal education to stay abreast of changing technology through manufacturer 
training, lab development and industry standard certifications. 
The petitioner went on to provide percentages of time allocated to specific duties performed by the 
beneficiary. The petitioner then described the beneficiary's training as follows: 
[The beneficiary] earned her certification, and as [the beneficiary] began 
working with the program, she quickly demonstrated an exceptional ability to comprehend, 
design, and deploy new products. Each of the hundreds of deployments that she completed 
provided [the beneficiary] with additional opportunities to learn more about 
coding and interactive behavior. In July 2010, [the beneficiary] Was promoted to the 
position of Senior System ' Engineer, where she worked until July 2011 an'd gained additional 
advanced, proprietary knowledge of Reporting directly to the company's 
Director , she gained significant advanced knowledge of 
and the nuances of the software through hundreds of real time deployment opportunities. In 
comparison to other certified employees within the company, [the 
beneficiary] has more experience and a more complete understanding of 
than any other employee abroad. 
The petitioner provided a copy of the beneficiary's certification in 
' dated August 10-21, 2009, along with a copy of the lab manual and classroom manual. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed position in the United States 
exactly as described on the Form 1-129 and in its initial letter of support and adds that the beneficiary will 
spend approximately 95% of her time on technical activities. The p~titioner then provided 
the same break down of duties as listed on the Senior Field Engineer Job Description submitted with the 
petition. 
The petitioner also described its current employees abroad and in the United States and the requisites for 
obtaining the beneficiary's level of specialized knowledge as follows: 
The Petitioner currently employs 364 individuals outside of the United States (thirty of 
whom are based at the branch office in Malaysia), but no other Senior Field Engineers are 
employed abroad, and there are no current employees with 
certification who have specialized knowledge and experience with 
equivalent to [the beneficiarvl. As noted above, it is impossible to have gained the level 
of experience with outside of the Petitioner's organization, but even 
with certification, additional extensive hands-on technical experience 
with the proprietary product and deployment and technical support of 
the product is require to be even minimally qualified for the Petitioner's U.S. role. The 
Petitioner estimates it would take a minimum of one (1) year to train even an experienced 
engineer within the company to adequately perform th( duties required 
for the U.S. position. The skills and specialized knowledge required for that role are 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DEC/S/0!1 
simply more complex than other engineering roles due to the complex technology 
involved with this patented product. . . . All of the current engineers [at the foreign 
entity] have been employed with the office for less than one (1) year and do not possess 
the level of experience and specialized knowledge required for the U.S. position, even if 
they were otherwise available for a transfer. None of these professionals could be 
assigned to the team, as they simply do not have the specialized 
knowledge to contribute as require 
* * * 
... continued success depends on the Petitioner's ability to meet contract deliverables. 
The Petitioner has sought an additional Senior Field Engineer for this purpose, but the 
degree of skill, technical experience, and specialized knowledge required for a role like 
this has been impossible to identify. The product is based on 
proprietary and patented technology, so only professionals with direct_ experience with 
company and product have the required experience necessary for this position. While all 
engineers assigned to projects require extensive technical knowledge, 
the Senior Field Engineer position is distinct from other engineering roles because of the 
deployment and support duties required. The Senior Field Engineer position must 
understand all technical issues related to the software, but beyond simply understanding 
that application, the position requires specialized knowl~dge of how the technology 
affects and is integrated with clients' systems .... 
There are a limited number of current employees with this level of specialized 
knowledge, but the project deliverables for new contracts are beyond the capacity of the 
Petitioner's current staff. With such a limited field of otentially qualified candidates, the 
Petitioner has actively recruited prior employees with certification and 
extensive product knowledge and experience to re-join the company to fill this critical 
role. 
* * * 
Only five to six engineers employed by the Petitioner in the United States have 
comparable experience to [the beneficiary] as required for this role, but these employees 
are currently working in a support role or development and are unable to absorb support 
of professional service. The only way the Petitioner can deliver on these new contracts is 
to add an additional Senior Field Engineer with the skills and specialized knowledge of 
the product to immediately develop and deploy the software. 
* * * 
The Petitioner estimates it would take a minimum of two (2) year to train a Field 
Engineer with no [petitioner] experience to become familiar enough with its products and 
technology, and then an additional one (1) year to acquire sufficient specialized 
knowledge with the product to perform the duties required for this 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON·PRECEDENT DECISION 
positiOn. The Petitioner additionally considered whether it could train current engineers 
assigned to. other groups on the product, but the Petitioner estimates it 
would take one (1) year or more to train such professionals because their current level of 
experience is not sufficient to perform the complex and technical duties required for the 
Senior Field Engineer role. 
The director denied the petition on August 19, 2013, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that she has been employed abroad or would be employed in 
the United States in a position requiring specialized knowledge. In denying the petition, the director found 
that the petitioner failed to sufficiently explain or evidence how the use of its tools, processes, and procedures 
in the execution of the beneficiary's everyday job duties involves specialized knowledge, as opposed to 
simply utilizing the knowledge in performing her daily duties. The director observed that, based on the 
description, the beneficiary performs the same or similar duties as other workers in a similar position in the 
field. The director further found that the description does not compare and contrast the beneficiary's duties 
with others performing the same type of work nor does it indicate why others have not acquired this "special" 
or "advanced" level of knowledge. The director finally found that insufficient evidence was presented to 
show that the position of senior field engineer involved a special or advanced level of knowledge in the sales 
field or related occupation. 
The director determined that the evidence does not demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses knowledge or 
experience that is significantly different from that possessed by similarly employed workers in the same 
business activity. The director found that the petitioner did not provide information relating to the 
beneficiary's specified training, such as oontent, duration, completion date, number of employees enrolled in 
each course, etc., to establish that the beneficiary's specialized knowledge gained through specific training 
courses establish a "special" or "advanced" level of knowledge of the company's equipment, system, product, 
technique, service, processes, or procedures when compared to other employees within the company. The 
director observed that the petitioner has a proprietary tool; however, the petitioner failed to indicate whether 
others in the field could obtain such knowledge in sufficient time so as to not disrupt or interrupt business 
operations. The director compared the beneficiary's proposed position to that of a typical senior field 
engineer or related occupation working in the sales field. The director found that it appears that the 
beneficiary will perform the same duties as other workers in a similar position and the record contains 
insufficient evidence to show that the proposed position in the U.S. involves a special or advanced .level of 
knowledge in the sales or related occupation. The director finally found that the petitioner has not established 
that similarly employed persons in the field could not readily acquire its company-specific knowledge. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that the director relied on the wrong occupational classification 
in making its decision. Counsel contends that the director suggests that the beneficiary's positions abroad and 
in the United States are akin to any sales engineer position, which is not accurate. Counsel contends that even 
when compared to a ·more appropriate occupational classification, the application is so 
unique that extensive engineering ·experience on other platforms does not transfer to the specialized skills 
required for the beneficiary's proposed position. Counsel contends that the director did not fully consider the 
detailed description of the ben~ficiary's duties and the duties' reliance on the beneficiary's technical and 
complex knowledge of the petitioner's proprietary software. Counsel further contends that the beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge and reiterates the petitioner's assertions that it would take three years to fully 
train a new employee to the same level of the beneficiary. Counsel asserts that the beneficiary's proposed 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
position in the United States involves specialized knowledge in that the senior field engineer must anticipate, 
respond to, and support client requirements and uses, which requires a level of specialized knowledge and 
experience even beyond that of the engineers developing the application and improvements. 
B. Analysis 
Upon· review, counsel's 
assertions are not persuasive. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge and has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the United States in 
a position requiring specialized knowledge as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D}. 
In order to establish eligibility, the petitioner must show that the individual will be employed in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 8 C.P.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 or prongs. 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.P.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. 
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. 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. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The director 
must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. 
/d. 
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 
in the petitioning company and/or against others holding comparable positions in the industry. The ultimate 
question is whether the petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a pr~ponderance of thb evidence that 
the beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is special or advanced, and that the beneficiary's position requires 
such knowledge. 
In the present case, the petitioner's claims are based on both prongs of the statutory definition "nPrifir~llv 
the petitioner states the beneficiary has expert knowledge of its proprietary and patented 
application and the skills to design and implement the application to match customer 
requirements. 
In examining the beneficiary's specialized knowledge and whether the offered position requires specialized 
knowledge, 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. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
detailed job description of the services to be performed sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. /d. 
The petitioner indicates that only an experienced field engineer with specific knowledge 
possesses the specialized knowledge required to perfonn the duties of the proposed position. Therefore, one of 
the critical questions before the AAO is whether the petitioner has supported its claim that the beneficiary's 
knowledge of the application alone constitutes specialized knowledge. 
The petitioner in this matter has not provided sufficient probative evidence establishing the nature of the 
claimed specialized knowledge. The crux of the petitioner's claim is that its application is 
proprietary and the beneficiary's training and experience in working with this application has resulted in the 
beneficiary's specialized and advanced knowledge. The petitioner's claim that the knowledge is proprietary 
must be accompanied by evidence establishing that the beneficiary possesses knowledge that is different from 
what is generally possessed in the industry; any claimed proprietary knowledge must still be "special" or 
"advanced." 
The petitioner indicates that it is a combination of the beneficiary's training and specific 
experience, which provided her with her claimed specialized knowledge. The petitioner further indicates that 
it would take a minimum of two years to train a field engineer with no prior experience with the petitioner to 
become familiar enough with its products and technology to then continue training for one additional year just 
to acquire sufficient specialized knowledge with the application to perform the duties 
required for the beneficiary's position abroad and in the United States. However, the petitioner stated that the 
beneficiary joined the foreign entity in July 2009 where she was introduced to the product and 
became an certified engineer in September 2009, just two months after joining the foreign 
entity.1 Then, in July 2010, only 10 months after completing the certification, the beneficiary was promoted to 
system engineer where she continued to gain advanced knowledge of the application, which 
suggests an elevated level of technical responsibilities, despite the fact that she had no prior exposure or 
documented experience with the petitioner's product. The pattern of the beneficiary's training and experience at 
the· foreign entity suggests that an individual hired for the first time can receive 
training/certification within two months of being hired and then continue to acquire advanced knowledge of 
through on-the-job experience. 
The petitioner has documented the beneficiary's completion of one 4-day 
certification and two additional ' certifications completed consecutively over 15 
days prior to the certification. · Based on this evidence, the petitioner has not established 
that thP. hP.nP.fici:uv c mpleted extensive training before assuming the technical role of system engineer within 
the application. The petitioner indicated that it only has five to six engineers in the United 
States with comparable experience to the beneficiary, but they are all currently working in other roles within 
The petitioner further indicated that it considered training current engineers assigned to 
other groups within but concluded that it . would take one year or more to train those 
engineers because their current level of experience is not sufficient to perform the complex and technical 
duties required for the beneficiary's proposed position in the United States. However, the duration of the 
~--------------------------~ 
certification is only four days, and even if the ' 
1 Although the certification was completed on September 4, 2009, the beneficiary began training on August 10, 2009. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
certifications are also required, it only extends the certification process by im additional 15 days. Thus, the 
petitioner has not supported its claim that that it cannot reasonably train another individual within the 
company to perform the tasks of the beneficiary's proposed position. 
The petitioner did not provide the information needed to make a comparison between the beneficiary's 
training and experience and that possessed by others or within the industry as a whole, nor did it provide 
information that would establish that knowledge of its application alone constitutes 
specialized or advanced knowledge. Therefore, while the record establishes that the beneficiary possesses the 
knowledge and skills required to maintain, enhance, and support the product, the petitioner does not establish 
that this knowledge is significantly different from that possessed by others within the company working on 
the same product or others who work with similar software products designed for the related industry. 
Additionally, given the 4-day certification and the fact that the beneficiary received the certification within 
two months of being hired and became a system engineer within 10 months after completing the certification, 
it is reasonable to expect that the etitioner can provide the same 4-day certification to a current employee 
working within the application to perform the same tasks of the beneficiary's position. 
Although the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's position in the United States requires specialized 
knowledge, the petitioner has not sufficiently articulated or documented its claims. Other than submitting a 
description of the beneficiary's current and proposed job duties and an explanation of how those duties require 
knowledge of the petitioner has not identified any aspect of the beneficiary's position 
which involves knowledge that rises to a level that is special or advanced. Specifically, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated what aspects of implementing and maintaining its proprietary software would require 
knowledge that is particularly complex or different from what is commonly held by experienced software 
professionals with the same skills in third-party technologies. 
Overall, the evidence does not reflect how the knowledge and experience required for the beneficiary's 
position would differentiate that position from similar positions at other employers within the industry. 
Again, the petitioner's claim that the knowledge is proprietary must be accompanied by evidence establishing 
that the beneficiary possesses knowledge that is different from what is generally possessed in the industry; 
any claimed proprietary knowledge must still be "special" or "advanced."· Simply going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). 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), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Finally, there are inconsistencies in the record with respect to the training and experience requirements 
imposed on other candidates for this position. The petitioner indicated that two years of experience with the 
petitioner's business is required prior to an additional one year of experience with the proprietary 
application. However, in the instant matter, the beneficiary barely had two months of expenence with 
the foreign entity when she received the certification and 10 months 
after that, was promoted to system engineer with the application. Based on the record, this 
clear inconsistency makes it difficult for the AAO to ascertain the actual requirements for training of a new 
employee and undermines the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary actually possesses knowledge that rises to 
the level of being specialized or advanced. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
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 ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility. Matter of Brantigan, 11 
I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the beneficiary is 
fully qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, 
eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. !d. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and has been employed abroad, and will be employed in 
the United States in a position requiring specialized knowledge. See Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.