dismissed L-1B Case: Software Consulting

(b)(6)
MATTER OF AUSA- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 5, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a business software and techni9al consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as an "Implementation Engineer )" 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. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, and that he been 
employed abroad and will be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
The Director also found that the placement of the Beneficiary at the worksite of an unaffiliated 
. employer is essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire for the unaffiliated employer. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in 
overlooking evidence of record and reaching erroneous conclusions of law. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the 
criteria outlined in section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organizat,ion 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-1 A 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-1 B nonimmigrant alien. I d. 
Matter of A USA- LLC 
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 
co,mpany. 
furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)( 1 )(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge as: 
[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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.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 (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 servic~s 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. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The first 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. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of AUSA- LLC 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner is business software and technical consulting firm, with 14 employees, and a stated 
gross annual income of $7 million . . 
The Petitioner stated the Beneficiary will be working as an implementation engineer 
. . The Petitioner provided a brief description of the Beneficiary's duties on the Farm I -129, 
followed by a more lengthy description in an attached letter. In the letter, the Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary was employed in a specialized knowledge capacity with the foreign employer "for 
over four years (June 2011- October 2015) in the position of Senior Functional Consultant. The 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was "critical" in the development of '' , a 
proprietary series of software modules." The modules are based on SAP software architecture. 
Specifically, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary performed the following duties: 
[The Beneficiary] was responsible for the customization, integration, and 
implementation of SAP· software used for contract life-cycle management and 
developing specific blueprints for implementation of this software for projects at 
client sites; customizing end-user interfaces to ·be used by client personnel; 
overseeing the implementation of such software components at client project sites 
(according to specific guidelines); providing key lectures and 
instructional seminars on proprietary method (which includes all 
aspects of the implementation process as well as regular maintenance); and training 
new functional consultants within the department. 
The Petitioner stated that through the Beneficiary's "employment with our affiliate ... [the 
Beneficiary] developed specialized knowledge and a unique skill set involving the customization, 
integration, and implementation of proprietary methodology and module." 
Regarding the position in the United States, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's employment 
in the United States is sought for the Petitioner's client, ' 
." The Petitioner explained that the project involves the deployment of the 
module. 
The Petitioner stated that as an implementation engineer ( 
responsible for the following duties: 
, the Beneficiary will be 
• Using the module to design customized verswns of 
corresponding interfaces which match contract life-cycle management 
needs (as assessed earlier in the implementation process) [30% of tl,le time]; 
• Overseeing integration scenarios and test runs of contract management methods 
and interfaces associated with the in order to ensure that specific 
glitches or malfunctions can be appropriately addressed [25% of time]; 
3 
(b)(6)
v 
Matter of AUSA- LLC 
• Creating initial design and implementation proposals which address targeted 
client needs (based on his specialized knowledge of specific method 
of configuring the SAP suite and how such software can manage these 
points of interest) [10% of time]; 
• Preparing and conducting workshops with personnel to gather the relevant 
information regarding contract life-cycle management in order to develop a 
framework for the implementation of the -specific payment technologies 
to be used for this technology [10% of time]; 
• Serving as an expert point of reference, for both professionals as well as 
subordinate and junior professionals assigned to this project regarding 
system throughout the entirety of the project and addressing 
any integration concerns regarding the same [10% of time]; 
• Providing end-user training for the employees who will be responsible for 
accessing systems put into place and related software on a day-
to-day basis [10% of time]; and 
• Leading and coordinating the initial processing of current historical 
methods and interfaces for managing the life-cycle of contractual agreements 
processed through [5% oftime]; 
The Petitioner further described the Beneficiary's acquisition of specialized knowledge as follows: 
[The Beneficiary] has accumulated a body of specialized knowledge regarding 
proprietary methodology that can only be gained through extensive 
and substantial training and work experience with the methodology. 
The Petitioner noted the Beneficiary's twelve years of SAP-related experience and that he has spent 
"an additional four years acquiring and refining his specialized knowledge of our proprietary 
methodology." 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE). The Director requested that the Petitioner provide 
evidence that the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge , evidence of the proposed specialized 
knowledge position in the United States, and evidence of the proposed specialized knowledge 
position with the foreign employer. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a letter with additional detail regarding the 
Beneficiary's position abroad, claimed specialized knowledge, and position in the United States. 
Regarding the position abroad, the Petitioner provided the following brief explanation of the 
specialized knowledge position as follows: 
[The Beneficiary] was responsible for developing specific blueprints for, and 
overseeing the implementation of key software components at client project 
sites (according to specific guidelines), providing key lectures and 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of AUSA- LLC 
instructional seminars regarding 
new functional consultants within the 
proprietary 
department. 
method, and training 
The Petitioner provided a more detailed explanation of its modules, and noted that its 
products and services have "only just been introduced into the United States market." 
Regarding the nature of the Beneficiary' s specialized knowledge, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary has "since June of 2011, [received] training on, and achieved mastery of, 
proprietary modules." The Petitioner further explained how the Beneficiary gained this 
experience in his position, as he was "responsible for the development and implementation of 
proprietary SAP-based modules." Finally, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary is only "one of a limited number of employees ... who is trusted to coordinate business 
requirements and proprietary solutions with clients." 
Regarding the Beneficiary 's acquisition of specialized knowledge, the Petitioner claimed that the 
Beneficiary's attendance of trainings and conferences over his four years at the company "further 
develop[ed] his knowledge of proprietary SAP-based modules." The Petitioner 
listed a Certificate of Advanced Banking Framework-Foundation and participation in the Advanced 
Banking Academy. 
In addition to the Beneficiary's training after joining the company, the Petitioner claims 
that the 
Beneficiary was hired "because he was already distinguished with the SAP development and 
customization field." The Petitioner reviewed the Beneficiary's degrees and his prior work history. 
The Petitioner' summarized the Beneficiary 's experience as foll?ws : 
[The Beneficiary] began his career as an accountant and since 2001 has served in 
various SAP Consulting roles of increasing responsibility. This deep well of 
experience in SAP-related business processes and solutions has given [the 
Beneficiary] the ability to quickly learn company specific modules 
and to truly improve our company 's ability to offer proprietary products across the 
globe. 
The Petitioner reviewed the specialized natur
e of the Beneficiary's work product, specifically 
technical blueprints previously submitted, two additional technical documents, and a presentation 
given by the Beneficiary to the subordinate functional consultants, evidencing the Beneficiary 's 
claimed specialized knowledge. 
Regarding the specialized knowledge position in the United States, the Petitioner provided a two 
page description of the Beneficiary's duties. The Petitioner noted that as an implementation 
engineer, the Beneficiary is responsible for "spearheading the implementation, configuration , and 
deployment of . module at the projects, as well as for 
providing guidance to junior engineers and other United States employees on same." The Petitioner 
noted that the Benefieiary is the "only individual within ranks that has detailed 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A USA- LLC 
knowledge of each of these [business] processes and how they have been designed and configured at 
" 
In addition to the letter, the Petitioner also submitted a copy of the foreign and United States 
organizational charts, the Beneficiary's resume, and the Beneficiary's training certificates. 
The 
Director ultimately denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary has specialized knowledge and that he was employed abroad and would be employed in 
the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. In denying the petition, the Director found 
that the Beneficiary's duties with the foreign entity are similar and typical of a senior functional 
consultant or related occupation. The Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the 
Beneficiary's education, training, and experience have resulted in specialized knowledge of the 
Petitioner's product and its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge 
or expertise in the organization's processes and procedures. Finally, the Director determined that the 
Beneficiary would be performing the same or similar duties as other similarly situated employees. 
The Director noted that the Petitioner did not show that although the Beneficiary possessed 
knowledge of proprietary products, the knowledge was "special " or "advanced. " 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked facts and evidence of record. 
Specifically, the Petitioner states that although the Beneficiary's duties are similar to a computer 
, systems analyst, the position involves additional duties related to the proprietary and highly complex 
products offered by the Petitioner. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the evidence of record, including the Petitioner ' s submis~ion on appeal, the record 
does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he was employed 
abroad and would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity as defined , 
at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(D). 
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. 369, 
3 76 (AAO 201 0). In evaluating the evidence , eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality. Id. The director must examine each piece of evidence for 
relevanc~, 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. 
In order to establish eligibility, the petitioner must show that the individual will be employed in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The statutory definition of specialized 
knowledge at Section 214( c )(2)(B) oJ 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 
6 
Matter of AUSA- LLC 
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). A 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 the beneficiary actually possesses specialized 
knowledge. 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 its 
products and services or processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field 
involved, and the nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how 
such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the 
beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
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 the beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held 
throughout the particular industry and cannot be
1 
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 the beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is advanced or special, and that the 
beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 
Here, the Petitioner's claims are based on the first and second prong of the statutory definition, 
asserting that the Beneficiary has a special knowledge of the company's products and their 
application in international markets and an advanced level of knowledge of the company's processes 
and procedures. 
Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or 
services and its application in international markets, a petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to the 
knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular industry. 
\ 
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. 
Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge, and that both the foreign 
position and proffered position in the United States require the specialized knowledge possessed by 
(b)(6)
Matter of A USA- LLC 
the Beneficiary. Specifically, the Petitioner claims in the initial petition and in response to the RFE 
that the Beneficiary 's specialized knowledge involves the following: 
[The Beneficiary's] knowledge of the module requires an in-depth knowledge 
of not only SAP based software systems and their integration and implementation , but 
also of processes and procedures regarding client interaction and 
coordination, a knowledge that can only be gained through prior experience with 
The Petitioner made general claims regarding the Beneficiary's acquiring knowledge through· on­
the-job training. The Petitioner stated in the initial petition that the Beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge was attained through "employment with our affiliate." The Petitioner further stated that 
the Beneficiary "accumulated" specialized knowledge regarding the Petitioner's proprietary 
methodology "that can only be gained through extensive and substantial training and work 
experience with the methodology. The Petitioner also notes in response to the RFE that the 
Beneficiary has "since June of 2011, [received] training on, and achieved mast~ry of, [the 
Petitioner's] proprietary SAP-based modules." The Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary 
received a Certificate of Advanced Banking Framework-Foundation and participated in the 
Advanced Baking Academy. The Petitioner also provided a sheet listing eight training programs at 
the "Level 2" and'nine training programs at the "Level 3." Only the Advanced Banking Academy 
certificate of conference listed the date as April 5, 2012. The other two training documents do not 
list the date the trainings were completed or duration of the trainings. Finally, the Petitioner stated in 
the initial Petitioner that the Beneficiary spent "four years acquiring and refining his specialized 
knowledge of our proprietary methodology. " 
The Petitioner has not shown that the duties required to perform the foreign position require the 
application of specialized knowledge. The Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary acquired the 
specialized knowledge skills on the job, while performing the position with the foreign employer, 
casts doubt on whether the foreign position requires specialized knowledge. According to the 
Petitioner, the Beneficiary has been serving in the position of senior functional consultant with the 
foreign employer since his initial date of hire in June of 2011 to October of 2015, at which time he 
began work with the Petitioner in the United States. The Beneficiary did not claim any prior 
experience with the foreign employer or affiliated entity. The Petitioner, however, claims that the 
Beneficiary foreign position was a specialized knowledge position as it required knowledge of the 
Petitioner's proprietary modules. The Petitioner does not explain how the Beneficiary 
obtained such in-house knowledge prior to any experience with the company. The Petitioner has not 
provided any other explanation on how the Beneficiary received training that it claims can only be 
acquired by in-house employees, without his having been previously employed by the company at 
the time he commenced the specialized knowledge position. 
We also note that the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary worked in the specialized knowledge 
position for approximately four years prior to his transfer to the United States. If the Beneficiary 
spent four years "acquiring and refining" his specialized knowledge with the Petitioner as stated in 
the initial petition, then consequently the Beneficiary would not have been able to spend one full 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of A USA- LLC 
year in the specialized knowledge position after obtaining the required specialized knowledge prior 
to his transfer to the United States. 
As stated by the Petitioner, the Beneficiary began performing the duties of his current position with 
the foreign employer on day one of his employment. Consequently, he performed those duties 
without the specialized knowledge that the Petitioner states he acquired through his employment 
experience. If the Beneficiary performed his required duties on the first day of employment with the 
company without any specialized knowledge, it logically follows that he could perform those same 
duties after any period of employment without specialized knowledge. The record does not establish 
whether the Beneficiary was promoted or assigned to a new position with the foreign employer at 
any time, or that his duties have otherwise changed in nature or complexity, thereby demonstrating 
the full assimilation of specialized knowledge gained through on-the-job experience. 
The Petitioner's specialized knowledge claim is severely undercut if the Beneficiary was able to 
fulfill the basic job requirements without having first acquired the specialized knowledge by 
completing the on-the-job experience and training as required by the Petitioner. The amount and 
type of training, work experience, and education required to develop the claimed specialized 
knowledge is one factor that may be used to determine whether the beneficiary 
possesses specialized 
knowledge. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). The potential combination of training, work experience, 
and education' is infinitely variable and there is no specific amount of time or type of training 
required to establish that the beneficiary possess specialized knowledge. The petitioner, however, 
must submit consistent and credible evidence to establish eligibility. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Similarly, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. We 
note the Petitioner's submission of the Beneficiary's work product, namely "blueprints." The 
Petitioner states on appeal, however, that projects on which the blueprint rely, "involve a great deal 
of customization as well as a full understanding of the many project dependencies and requirements 
that depend on the module." The Petitioner's claims are based on the Beneficiary's 
knowledge of the proprietary module, but the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this 
knowledge is in fact specialized. Specifically, the Petitioner has not shown that such knowledge 
rises above the working knowledge of the product, tools, processes, or procedures needed to perform 
the technical lead function for the foreign employer, such that it might be considered special or 
advanced. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(D). The Petitioner did not explain why, if the Beneficiary was 
able to fulfill the position without any prior experience with the module, any other similarly 
situated employee with banking and financial knowledge as well as SAP experience gained at other 
employer~ would not also be able to acquire readily transferrable knowledge of the proprietary 
module. 
Finally, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary will serve in a specialized knowledge 
position in the United States. The Petitioner claims on appeal that the Beneficiary is the "only 
individual within ranks that has a detailed knowledge of each of these [business] 
processes and how they have been designed and configured at The Petitioner notes that the 
Beneficiary has an expert level of knowledge related to "SAP banking modules and technology, 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of AUSA- LLC 
banking and financial knowledge, and methodologies." The Petitioner states that this 
combination of skillsets is required for the claimed specialized knowledge position in the United 
States. The Petitioner, however, has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate how the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of SAP banking modules and technology, or banking and financial 
knowledge generally, rises above that of a similarly situated employee. The Petitioner's submission 
of the Beneficiary's academic degrees and work history submitted in response to the RFE do not 
provide any comparison to other employees in the field. Furthermore, as explained above, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that knowledge of the Petitioner's business methodologies, 
specifically the module, rises to the level of specialized knowledge. 
We note that the Petitioner, in response to the RFE, stated that the Beneficiary was hired because he 
was "already distinguished within the SAP development and customization field." The Petitioner 
provided information regarding the Beneficiary's degrees and work history. The Petitioner, 
however, seemed to be relying solely on the Beneficiary's length of service and experience, but did 
not provide any comparison to other similarly employed workers in the industry. Furthermore, the 
Petitioner claimed that the specialized knowledge possessed by the Beneficiary and required for both 
the position abroad and in the United States involves the use of their proprietary modules. As 
the Beneficiary did not use such modules until his employment with the Petitioner, it-is unclear how 
the Beneficiary's general knowledge of SAP modules during his prior work history provides him 
with unique or uncommon knowledge compared to other similarly employed workers. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge and will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity with the 
Petitioner in the United States. See Section 214( c )(2)(B) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
III. VISA REFORM ACT 
If a specialized knowledge beneficiary will be primarily stationed at the worksite of an unaffiliated 
employer, the statute mandates that the petitioner establish both: (1) that the beneficiary will be 
controlled and supervised principally by the petitioner, and (2) that the placement is related to the 
provision of a product or service for which specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning 
employer is necessary .. Section 214(c)(2)(F) of the Act. These two questions of fact must be 
established for the record by documentary evidence; neither the unsupported assertions of counsel or 
the employer will suffice to establish eligibility. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165; Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). If the petitioner does not establish 
both of these elements, the beneficiary will be deemed ineligible for classification as an L-1 B 
intracompany transferee. 
Although the Director discussed the Beneficiary's placement at a client site, we need only evaluate 
the Beneficiary's worksite placement when the Petitioner has met its burden to establish that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge position. In this 
case, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialized knowledge 
10 
\ 
Matter of A USA- LLC 
position. As such, we do not make a finding with regard to the Beneficiary's worksite placement at 
this time. However, if the Petitioner were to overcome the issues cited above in the future, the 
Petitioner would then need to establish that the Beneficiary's employment and worksite placement 
were in compliance with the applicable law. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition 
proceedings, the burden of proving eligibilitX for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner. 
Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 136; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, 
the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of AUSA- LLC, ID# 13744 (AAO Oct. 5, 2016) 
II