dismissed L-1B Case: Software Development

MATTER OF K-1-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. I4, 20I6 
PETITION: FORM I-I29, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
lead consultant under the L-IB nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § IOI(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(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, Vermont Service Center, denied the pet1t10n. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has 
been employed abroad and will be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge 
capacity. The Director further found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has at 
least one continuous year of full-time employment with its foreign parent company within the three 
years preceding the filing of the petition. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner states that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
has previously approved two L-IB visa petitions for the Beneficiary under the same circumstances 
and is required to give deference to these two prior approvals in reviewing the current matter. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
\ 
To establish eligibility for the L-I nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section I 0 I (a )(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge 
capacity. Id. 
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-I A nonimmigrant alien. If a qualified beneficiary 
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
will be rendering services in a capacity that involves "specialized knowledge," the beneficiary may 
be classified as an L-1 B 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(l)(l)(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. 
1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 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) ofthis section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the 
services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position 
that was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the 
alien's prior education, training and employment qualifies him/her to perform 
the intended services in the United States; however the work in the United 
States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
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. 
A. Evidence ofRecord 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129 on February 9, 2016. The Petitioner states 
that it is in the 
business of providing "outsourced off-shore customer software development." It indicated in the 
Form I-129 that it earned an estimated $400 million in revenue during the previous year and that it 
employs more than 9000 employees worldwide. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from its director of human resources, specifying 
that the Beneficiary's foreign employer was and the company 
was formed following a merger between it and one of the company's largest clients. 
She indicated that the Beneficiary worked for as a lead consultant from August 2007 
until April 2010, worked in the United States in L-IB status from May 2010 until November 2014, 
and returned to in November 2014. 
described the Beneficiary's role as follows: 
[The Beneficiary] is a senior technical consultant employed with the [company] and 
is responsible for executing projects offshore as well as at client sites. He is 
responsible for providing solutions to software projects as an Oracle Applications 
expert. He has been involved in Requirement analysis, study of existing systems, 
create impact analysis, validation of the business functionality and testing. He is 
familiar with [the company's] which is a 
proprietary methodology to establish a center of excellence team for Integration work 
done for its large clients like He has the experience in automating the 
build and deployment process. He works on common services used for common 
delivery· and reporting. He has helped document best practices and development 
guidelines which are deliv~rables for 
She further stated that the Beneficiary has "thorough knowledge and experience in [the company's] 
onsite-offshore processes, methodologies and tools on application software development and 
maintenance, by virtue of his involvement in software projects at [the company]." Specifically, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary is being transferred to the United States because he has 
"specialized and advanced knowledge of the of to service client supply chain 
and Manufacturing IT Application Needs for Common 
Interfaces." 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
provided a description of the Beneficiary's current duties, which include understanding 
client functional requirements, "keeping track of all the Engine business unit CRQs (changes)," 
tracking these changes in "Remedy as per the process," completing and testing CRQs in 
"UAT instance," getting approval for CRQs and planning for their implementation, communicating 
with the client on changes and tool and technical issues, and providing training to the client and 
"continuous mentoring" for new team members. She also explained that the Beneficiary has 
"specialized and advanced knowledge of the [company's] method of execution of the 
project for our most valuable, oldest and important client, She stated 
that it would be "unfeasible" to train another worker to this level, noting that it would require at least 
one year of experience at the foreign employer to complete such training. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's proposed position, explained that the client project 
involves new implementation and support of the production environment across various 
global locations. She stated that uses a new solution, "Oracle E-Business Suite," which 
provides "process automation with enterprise integration," "complete automation," and a 
functionally complete system with over 100 product modules covering all aspects of the client's 
business. She indicated that the Beneficiary 
"will perform the System Integration tests and 
common interfaces roll outs at design and develop applications integrated with the 
client's external applications, analyze and correct bugs, assist the client in user acceptance testing, 
and work on the "process discovery· and rationalization phase for the next release." She listed and 
described several Oracle tools the Beneficiary will utilize when assigned to the project, including 
Oracle's E-Business Suite or EBS, Oracle Developer Suite (Forms & Reports), Oracle Database llg, 
ZebraDesigner for XML, and Oracle Workflow Builder. 
stated that the project involves activities related to new implementation and 
supporting the client's production environment across several locations, and would require the 
Beneficiary to perform the following duties: 
• Common Customizations. 
• Understand business requirement and prepare functional design for new 
Customizations. 
• Upgrade the lli customizations to Oracle R12 versions. 
• Design and develop interfaces to import the sales order from WEB Systems into 
Oracle ERP. 
• Design and develop interfaces to import the Prices from Legacy system to Oracle 
ERP. 
• Co-ordination with development team, query resolutions and get clear 
understanding of the requirement. 
• Integration testing with Plant users/owners and getting approval to mitigate to 
their plant instances. 
• Work closely with DBA's to roll-out the customizations across the plant 
instances. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
• Perform customizations setups in the plant instances and run the rounds of testing 
with different scenarios. ' 
• Work with Oracle support for resolving critical and transactional issues through 
SR's. 
• Production Instance Setup and provide Infant care support. 
• Root Cause analysis for critical and repetitive issues faced by Users. 
• Team co-ordination, communication, internal meetings, and client 
communications. 
• Testing of Reports and Customizations. 
• Identify the gaps between the current business process and new process and fill 
those with the help of Change, Requests in the existing customizations 
• Maintain same versions of codes all across Plants, performing migrations 
wherever necessary. 
• Deliver products to the client on time with high quality. 
• Address and fix critical customer defects. 
\ 
She explained that the Beneficiary has "advanced and specialized knowledge in many of these areas, 
processes and methodologies, the task of harmonizing and optimizing the set processes" and "hands 
on experience on developing the components and deployment process." 
indicated that the Beneficiary was chosen for the U.S. position because he has deep understanding of 
the challenges inherent to the company's onsite and offshore engagements, as well as special and 
advanced knowledge of Oracle E-Business Suite execution the "[the Petitioner's] way." 
The Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's resume which indicated that he holds domain knowledge 
of business processes, in depth knowledge of Oracle E-business Suite Rll and Rl2, and 
experience troubleshooting Oracle applications in different busin~ss units. The resume 
listed the Beneficiary's various projects reflecting that he has been working on common 
interfaces and with since November 2014. Further, it showed 
that the Beneficiary 
had worked on a several Oracle related projects at other locations dating back to August 
2007. The resume indicated that prior to this the Beneficiary gained approximately three years of 
Oracle1 applications implementation and production support experience with unrelated employers. 
The Petitioner provided a number of certificates and awards the Beneficiary had received while 
employed with the company. 
The Petitioner submitted an untitled organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary, listed as 
"offshore," is in a division overseen by the "Head, Delivery." This employee is shown as 
overseeing a "Delivery Manager, Support" who supervises several 
senior project 
managers and engagement managers dedicated to assignments, each with their own 
subordinate project managers, lead consultants, and consultants. The chart did not list the duties, 
experience, education levels, or salaries for these employees. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted a letter from confirming that the Petitioner provides 
information technology services, and that due to the complexity of its IT systems, it expects the 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
Petitioner's computer consulting professionals to possess at least a bachelor's degree or the 
equivalent in engineering or computer science. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the Beneficiary's "in depth knowledge" 
of the methodologies and procedures of the company did not appear unusual for someone similarly 
placed in the company. The Director pointed out that the Beneficiary's knowledge appeared to be 
mainly predicated on knowledge of Oracle technologies rather than the products and processes of the 
company. Therefore, the Director requested that the Petitioner submit an organizational chart 
reflecting the job titles, duties, education levels, and salaries for all the members of the Beneficiary's 
immediate department. The Director asked the Petitioner to specify the products, tools, and 
processes that make up the Beneficiary's knowledge and the minimum time required to gain his 
level of knowledge. The Director emphasized that the Petitioner should compare the Beneficiary to 
other similarly placed colleagues both within and outside the company to demonstrate that his 
knowledge is advanced or uncommon. 
In response, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary ' s "in depth knowledge" of the company's 
methodologies and procedures is the very definition of advanced knowledge. The Petitioner 
questioned how the Director could discern what knowledge is unusual for a senior technical 
consultant. The Petitioner indicated that USCIS had previously approved two L-lB visa petitions 
for the Beneficiary based on the same evidence. 
Further, the Petitioner stated the following with respect to the Beneficiary's proposed position in the 
United States: 
The record and the history has sufficient evidence that the position in the USA 
requires the Beneficiary's specialized and advanced knowledge. Two times in the 
recent past the USCIS has approved an L-lB petition (to work on this project) on 
behalf of [the Beneficiary], acknowledging that the US position requires this 
knowledge. Nothing has changed i.e. the same employer/petitioner, beneficiary, 
client, project. USCIS has no reason or rationale or deficiency in the record to 
support this about face-making this arbitrarily issued RFE. 
The Petitioner explained that is a "very _large client" and that a large portion of its 
revenue comes from executing projects for this client. The Petitioner asserted that it only assigns a 
small number of IT professionals onsite with this client while the majority of the team remains 
offshore. It indicated that only key personnel with special and advanced knowledge of 
projects are assigned onsite. The Petitioner further disputed the Director's conclusion that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is "typical of a lead consultant," noting that his duties are unique to project 
execution for and that this knowledge can only be gained through years of working on 
these projects. 
The Petitioner stated the following with respect to the Beneficiary's level of knowledge m 
comparison to his colleagues: 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
Typically less than 1 person per 80 to 100 employees is considered unique or in 
possession of uncommon specialized knowledge. You will note that any time we 
have approximately 9000 employees worldwide (of which about half are deployed on 
US client projects) . In the U~A, we have approximately 450+ employees, and 
including our US based affiliates , we have 750+ employees. Of these total 
employees, only about 1% to 3% are considered to have knowledge that is 
"uncommon " (i.e. advanced and specialized) . 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary ' s knowledge is derived from his bachelor's degree in 
electronics and control engineering and his several years of experience working exclusively for 
The Petitioner reiterated that this level of knowledge can only be obtained through "at 
least one year of in-house overseas employment " with the foreign entity "doing these activities." 
In denying the petition , the Director found that the Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate the 
Beneficiary ' s specialized knowledge , indicating that it did not submit a detailed explanation of the 
methodologies and technologies used by the Beneficiary and how these are uncommon when 
compared to those working in similar positions for the company and in the industry at large. The 
Director concluded that the Petitioner did not describe the Oracle systems in which the Beneficiary 
was versed and how his knowledge of these technologies is considered distinguished, particularly 
since it is not the Petitioner's proprietary technology. The Director stated that the lack of evidence 
of special training suggested that another Oracle expert could be readily trained to perform the same 
duties. She observed that the Petitioner had provided vague and non-specific comparisons of the 
Beneficiary against others which did not substantiate that his knowledge is advanced or uncommon. 
Finally, she concluded that given that was the Petitioner 's largest client, it was likely that 
many others in the organization 
held the one year of experience required to reach the Beneficiary 's 
level of knowledge and that such knowledge is "widely proliferated " throughout the organization. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that it has no flfrther evidence to supplement the record , 
indicating that USCIS had twice before approved L-1 B petitions for the Beneficiary based on the 
same evidence. It contends that USCIS is required to give deference to its two prior approvals 
pursuant to a recently issued policy memorandum , and asserts that the Beneficiary ' s duties are "very 
critical" to its operations. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge or that he has been employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a 
specialized knowledge capacity as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D) . 
In 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, 
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
376 (AAO 2010). In evalua:ting the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality. !d. 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. 
In order to establish eligibility, the petitioner must show that the given beneficiary 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. 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(l)(l)(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 benefi~iary 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. 1 
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 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. In the present case, the Petitioner does not 
specifically state whether the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge is either special or 
advanced. 
First, we will address the Petitioner's primary assertion on appeal that we are required to give 
deference to prior approvals relating to the Beneficiary and the same project, the last approval, being 
in August 2012. In support of this assertion, the Petitioner cites a recent policy memorandum 1 
issued by USCIS giving guidance on L-IB adjudications, noting that the memorandum states that 
USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-IB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), 
https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
USers officers should give deference to the prior approvals of L-IB petitions. The Petitioner 
contends that we are bound to give deference to these two prior approvals since the current matter 
involves "the. same underlying facts." 
We do not concur with the Petitioner's assessment of the intent of the recently issued policy 
memorandum. The Petitioner ignores that the memorandum further states that we should reexamine 
previous approvals where there was a material error with regard to the previous approval or a 
substantial change in the circumstances since the approval. Further, the aforementioned discussion 
relates to the extension of a previously approved L-1 B petition. In the current matter, the last L-1 B 
approval involving the Beneficiary took place more than three years prior to the current petition, and 
as such it is not an extension, but a new petition. Further, each nonimmigrant petition filing is a 
separate proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of proof. In making a 
determination of statutory eligibility, users is limited to the information contained in that 
individual record of proceeding. 8 e.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 16)(ii). Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Beneficiary began his current project assignment in November 2014, well after the more recent prior 
petition was approved, so the record does not support a claim that the facts are the same as they were 
in the previous L-1 B filings. As such, it was reasonable to the Director to review the totality of the 
evidence in the current record in order to determine eligibility, and we will do the same. 
Following a review of the evidence, we concur with the Director that the Petitioner has not provided 
a sufficient explanation of the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge, particularly, the products and 
processes making up this knowledge. 
The Petitioner makes reference to numerous concepts and processes, but does not explain them, 
including an "automating the build," deployment processes, 
on-site and offshore processes, methodologies and tools, ' common interfaces" and 
common interfaces and rollouts, "optimizing the set processes," and "developing 
components." In each case, the Petitioner does not describe these concepts or processes in detail or 
explain how knowledge of them sets the Beneficiary apart from his colleagues both within and 
outside of the company. The Petitioner indicates that it was not appropriate for the Director to 
conclude that the Beneficiary's knowledge is common when compared to other lead consultants. 
However, we note that the burden of proof is on the Petitioner in this matter, and without a proper 
explanation of the Beneficiary's knowledge, it is difficult to determine how it is advanced or 
uncommon when compared ·to others. As noted, USe IS 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 its products and services or processes and procedures and the 
nature of the Beneficiary's knowledge. 
Because "special knowledge" concerns 
knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or 
services and its application in international markets, the petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to the 
knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular industry. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
Here, to the extent the Petitioner describes the Beneficiary's knowledge it is evident that _his 
knowledge is almost exclusively based in third party Oracle technology and specific client 
requirements. The Beneficiary's duties, the descriptions of his knowledge, and his resume discuss at 
length his experitmce with Oracle systems and processes. We note that in order to establish 
eligibility, the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary either has special knowledge of the 
company product and its application in international markets or that he has an advanced level of 
knowledge of processes and procedures of the company. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
Therefore, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge is based in the 
processes and procedures of the Petitioner or its affiliated companies. 
However, there is no indication that the Beneficiary holds specialized knowledge exclusive to the 
Petitioner. The Petitioner vaguely states that the Beneficiary has knowledge of the Petitioner's 
its on-site and offshore processes, methodologies and tools, 
and the of implementing Oracle products, but does not describe in detail this claimed 
prop~ietary knowledge or the nor indicate how this knowledge is set apart from that 
utilized by other similarly placed software development companies who provide similar Oracle­
based services. 
Further, the Petitioner did not document its asserted tools, such as ICC, or explain how much 
training and experience is required to master these tools. The evidence of record does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary or the Petitioner's other technical employees must attend extensive 
training sessions in the company's processes and methodologies or intensive training related to their 
client project assignments. Rather, it appears that the internal systems, tools, and methodologies 
used to execute client projects are reasonably used company-wide by employees. Without evidence 
of how the Petitioner's employees _acquire the claimed specialized knowledge, the Petitioner has not 
met its burden to establish that knowledge of its processes and methodologies could not be easily 
imparted to a similarly qualified Oracle professional. Indeed, the Petitioner's resume indicates that 
he worked for two other software development companies from October 2004 to July 2007, and the 
duties of these positions are very similar to his assignments with the Petitioner and his foreign 
employer, suggesting that the Beneficiary's knowledge of Oracle systems and technology would be 
rather common among those similarly placed in the industry. The Petitioner has not documented any 
training he received upon joining the foreign entity in order to enable him to perform Oracle-related 
work for its clients. 
We have also reviewed the record to determine if the Petitioner submitted evidence to support its 
assertion that the Beneficiary has "advanced knowledge" of its processes and procedures. Because 
"advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, the 
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 
emorandum further states that we should' reexamine 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
The Director emphasized in the RFE that the Petitioner should submit evidence to differentiate the 
Beneficiary, including specific comparisons between the Beneficiary and his colleagues and a 
detailed organizational chart showing the duties, education levels, and salaries of his colleagues. 
However, the Petitioner did not submit this evidence, but merely indicated that two other L-IB visas 
involving the same Beneficiary and project had been approved by USCIS years before. Failure to 
submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). In the absence of this probative evidence, we can only examine 
that which was submitted, which reveals that the company has over 9000 employees, that the 
Beneficiary works on a project with the company's largest client, accounting for a large 
portion of its revenue. The Petitioner, and its Form IOK, indicates that the customization ofOracle 
systems and processes is a core part of its business. This evidence, as stated by the Director, 
suggests that there are likely many other developers working for the company with the Beneficiary's 
level of knowledge of both Oracle technologies and the client. 
Without some basis of comparison, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
advanced when compared to his colleagues. or special in comparis.on to that of other experienced 
Oracle-certified professionals in the industry. In fact, the submitted organizational chart includes 
others placed in consultant roles with as well. project managers and senior project 
managers, but the Petitioner provides no information or evidence related to these colleagues, nor 
does it indicate how the Beneficiary compares or is set apart from them. The Petitioner suggests that 
the Beneficiary's intimate knowledge ofthe client alone should demonstrate the specialized level of 
his knowledge. We recognize that the Beneficiary has gained insight into and familiarity with the 
company's processes and client systems while assigned to work on projects over a period 
of years. Any client project executed by a technology consulting company is unique in that it 
reflects the particular technological needs and business requirements of the individual client 
requesting the consulting services. However, all information technology consultants within the 
petitioning organization would be familiar with the Petitioner's internal processes and 
methodologies for carrying out client projects. Similarly, most employees would also possess 
project-specific knowledge relative to one or more international clients. Therefore, it is reasonable 
to conclude that many employees have at least one year of experience working on Oracle projects for 
which is cited as the minimum requirement for the Beneficiary's position. 
Therefore, we cannot conclude based on the submitted evidence that the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
greatly developed beyond his colleagues or uncommon in an industry without some specific 
comparison of his knowledge, training, and experience to that of others. 
We have also reviewed the Petitioner's statements that only "1% to 3%" of its 9000 employees 
worldwide hold specialized knowledge and its claim that the Beneficiary fits within this class of 
specialized knowledge employees. According to the Petitioner's assertion, certain employees are 
deemed to have special and advanced knowledge based on their mere incJusion within a certain 
undefined class. The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary's very assignment to the United 
States should demonstrate his specialized level of knowledge, noting that only those employees with 
special or advanced knowledge are transferred to the United States. However, the Petitioner must do 
more than articulate that a few of its employees hold special and/or advanced knowledge within its 
11 
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
overall organization to demonstrate that a particular beneficiary holds specialized knowledge. 
Merely asserting that the Beneficiary possesses "special" or "advanced" knowledge will not suffice 
to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited 
weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of proof. See Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)); see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner 
must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not submitted probative evidence 
demonstrating that the Beneficiary's combination of professional experience, project assignments, 
third-party software expertise, and knowledge of the Petitioner's project methodologies has resulted 
in his possession of knowledge that is distinct or uncommon compared to similarly employed 
workers in the industry or others within the petitioning company. The record also does not include 
evidence establishing that the Beneficiary's knowledge is greatly developed or further along in 
progress, complexity, and understanding that is generally found within the petitioning organization. 
We do not doubt that the Beneficiary is a valuable employee who is well-qualified for the offered 
U:S. position. However, for the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not establish 
that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he would be employed in a specialized 
knowledge capacity with the Petitioner in the United States. See Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. For 
this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. ONE YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The next issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
completed at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying 
organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(3 )(iii). 
In denying the petition on this ground, the Director indicated that USCIS had requested evidence 
from the Petitioner to substantiate the Beneficiary's minimum one year of employment abroad, 
including supporting payroll documentation, but the Petitioner· it did not submit this evidence. In its 
appeal, the Petitioner does not directly address this ground for dismissal. 
Regardless, upon review, we find that the Petitioner has submitted adequate evidence to establish 
that the Beneficiary has more likely than not been employed with the foreign entity for at least one 
year out of the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Specifically, the record includes 
payroll and Indian tax documentation showing his employment with the foreign entity since the 
fourth quarter of 2014. As such, the Director's decision as to this issue will be withdrawn. 
12 
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa 
petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility 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 ofK-1-, Inc., ID# 29535 (AAO Nov. 14, 2016) 
13