dismissed L-1B Case: Software Development

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K-1-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 19,2018 
PETITION: FORM 1- I 29, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"senior . security consultant" under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(l5)(L). The L-IB classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
affiliate or subsidiary) to transfe r a qualifying foreign employee with "specialized knowledg e .. to 
work temporarily in the United States. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required , that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowl edge and has been employed 
abroad, and will be employed in the United States, in a specialized knowledge capacit y. The 
Director concluded further that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary ' s assignment to an 
unaffiliated employer 's facility would be permissible under section 214(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the Act, as 
created by the L-1 Visa Reform Act of2004. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary possesses "specialized and advanced 
knowledge" of its methods , processes, and techniques for executing specific types of projects and 
that this knowledge is required to properly execute and complete the project in the United States. 
The Petitioner claims that the evidence already submitted establishe s the Beneficiar y's eligibility by 
a preponderance of the evidence and that it has no additional material to supplement the record. The 
Petitioner avers that the Director did not apply the regulatory and statutory definitions and U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) policy interpreting the specialized knowledge 
definitions. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
1 
As the appeal will be dismissed on the issue of specialized knowledge, the Petitioner's lack of compliance with the L-1 
Visa Reform Act of2004 is moot. We will not address this issue further in this decision. 
.
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B nonimmigrant visa classification , a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 1 Ol(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 specialized knowledge capacity. !d. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary 's prior education , trainin g, and employment qualities him or 
her to perform the intended services in the United States . 8 C.F.R. § 21 4.2(1)(3). 
A beneficiary is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to 
a company if the beneficiary 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. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). 
Specialized knowledge is also defined as 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is an information technology business with over 9000 employees in the United States 
and worldwide and an estimated gross annual income of 400 million worldwide. The Petitioner 
states that it "works with 60+ Global Automotive companies, 15+ leading energy & utility 
companies, 70+ Global Manufacturing companies and 8 of the top ten semiconductor companies to 
develop innovative IT solutions in various areas." 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary is being transferred "because of her specialized and 
advanced knowledge of the execution of for projects .''2 The 
foreign employer's representative confirmed the Beneficiary 's employment since Decemb er 201 1. 
The Petitioner claims that "[h]er education, qualifications and the experience gained at [the 
petitioning organization's family of companies] working on the tor 
projects, 3 will be of tremendous use in the position offered to her at our company: ' The 
2 The Petitioner noted that is an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system which was acquired by Oracle in 2005 
and that the proposed U.S. project is a" upgrade project from .I. for [its] client." 
3 Although the Petitioner indicates numerous times in the record that the Beneficiary "has specialized and advanced 
knowledge of the for pr~jects," it does not provide a detailed explanation of this 
technology in layman's terms. To the extent that the Petitioner has explained the technology involved. the record 
indicates that is an Oracle product that is widely available in the ERP systems field. While there are several ERP 
systems that are widely used across different industries, the Petitioner does not claim that knowledge of itself 
qualities as specialized knowledge. 
2 
.
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
Petitioner contends that "[i]t would be unfeasible to train a US worker in the knowledge that [the 
Beneficiary] possesses, since the knowledge was gained overseas and required at least one year of 
expenence on upgrade projects at [the foreign employer] in India to gain it." 
We have considered the Petitioner's reference to USCIS policy on the adjudication of L-1 B petitions 
and in particular USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-011 1. L-1 B Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 
2015) , https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. As explained in the memorandum, USCIS is 
able to adjudicate L-1 B petitions most effectively when a petitioner "explains in detail the specific 
nature of the industry or field involved , the nature of the petitioning organization· s products or 
services , the nature of the specialized knowledge required to perform the beneficiary ' s duties , and 
the need for the beneficiary ' s specialized knowledge." In this matter, the Petitioner has not provided 
the necessary detailed information required to establish these essential elements . 
Ill. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's prior education, 
training , or employment qualifies her to perform in a specialized knowledge capacity and further 
determined that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary's foreign position and proposed U.S. 
position require specialized knowledge. 
On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has been employed with the foreign entity for 
more than the required year. The Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary gained valuable 
specialized and advanced knowledge 4 of its methods , processes , and techniques for executing 
specific types of projects and that this knowledge is required to properly execute and complete the 
project in the United States. The Petitioner repeats that the Beneficiary has specialized and 
advanced knowledge of its execution of the for projects and that 
it "would be unable to find anyone else with his [sic] deep knowledge of [its] processes, procedures 
and methods for executing the project." The Petitioner reiterates that only those who have worked 
on the for project for a long time would have this required 
knowledge. 
As a threshold issue, we must determine whether the Petition er established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge . If the evidence is insufficient to establish that she posse sses 
specialized knowledge , then we cannot conclude that she has been employed abroad in a position 
involving specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United States in a speciali zed 
knowledge capacity . 
~ The Petitioner refers to the Beneficiary ' s knowl edge as specialized and advanc ed throughout the record. It appear s that 
the Petitioner is claiming that the Beneficiary 's knowledge is both "special'· and ·'advanced " and thus that her knowledge 
is 
specialized under both pron gs ofthe statutory definition of speci alized knowl edge. 
.
Matter of K-1-. Inc. 
A petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition of specialized knowledge.
5 
Under the statute, 
a beneficiary is considered to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: (1) a "special" knowledge 
of the company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced'' level of 
knowledge ofthe processes and procedures ofthe company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act. 
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. We cannot make a factual determination regarding a given beneticiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of its 
products and services or processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field 
involved, and the 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 
individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
A. Special Knowledge 
The Petitioner's primary claim is based on the Beneficiary's experience gained at the petitioning 
organization's family of companies working on the for project. 
Determining whether a beneficiary has "special knowledge" requires review of a given beneficiary's 
knowledge of how the petitioning organization manufactures. produces, or develops its products, 
services, research, equipment, techniques. management, or other interests. 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. Knowledge that is commonly held throughout 
a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to another is not considered 
specialized. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been working in the 
domain and has "undergone various 
training related to tools such as 
Q-Software, ALL OUT, El Config, El SOD, Streamliner, Audit run, Insight, Oversight." The 
Petitioner does not include any information on the amount and type of training the Beneficiary 
received to use these tools and significantly does not differentiate these tools from tools used 
industry-wide to upgrade systems or the security subset functionality. The Petitioner has not 
supported its claim that the Beneficiary's knowledge is different from that generally held by other 
consultants. 
5 
Although some aspects of the "special" and "advanced" knowledge definitions may overlap, we will address each 
element individually. 
4 
.
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary "is an expert in [its] proprietary and 
Framework, ' she is actively involved in development of this product for the past 4 years," and that 
this "Framework is widely used in projects." The Petitioner also 
listed the Beneficiary's tasks within the and frameworks. However, the Petitioner has not 
articulated or documented the function of these systems or how the Beneficiary used these 
proprietary tools during the course of her duties. The Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary was 
actively involved in development of this product is not corroborated in the record . The Beneficiary 
does not reference these particular tools on her resume and does not indicate that she was involved in 
the development of these products . The Petitioner also has not specified how much training is 
needed to become proficient in these tools and the record does not contain evidence that the 
Beneficiary received any formal training in these internal tools or systems . 
The current statutory and regulatory definitions of "specialized knowledge" do not include a 
requirement that a beneficiary ' s knowledge be proprietary. However , whether the knowledge is 
proprietary or not, a petitioner must still establish that the knowledge utilized in the proposed 
position and possessed by a beneficiary is in fact specific to the petitioning organization, and 
somehow different from that possessed by similarly-employed individuals in the industry. It is 
reasonable to believe that all consulting companies develop internal tools and methodologies for 
implementation of client projects. Without a substantive explanation or evidence , the Petitioner has 
not established that its internal tools are particularly complex or that it would take a significant 
amount of time to train an experienced consultant who had no prior experience with the 
Petitioner's family of companies to perform the duties required of the position . 
Rather, the record suggests that the Petitioner ' s technical employees may undergo limited short-term 
training sessions . It does not include evidence that the Beneficiary or the Petitioner's other technical 
employees must attend extensive training sessions in the use of the company's tools, services, or 
methodologies, or intensive training related to their project assignments. It appears that the internal 
systems and tools used within the petitioning organization are reasonably used company-wide by 
company employees, and that these systems and tools are similar to those used industry-wide. 
The Petitioner emphasizes that it is the Beneficiary's exclusive work on security projects as well as 
her education 
and three years of experience in the field that is the foundation of her "specialized 
knowledge. " However , the Petitioner does not offer any analysis on how the Beneficiary's 
day-to-day work experience and minimal training resulted in special knowledge. Based on the 
evidence submitted , the Petitioner's internal tools, methodologies , and project implementation 
practices can be readily learned on-the-job by employees who · otherwise possess the requisite 
technical and functional background in ERP and more specifically the system . For example, 
the Beneficiary's resume shows that when she began work for the foreign entity in December 20 11 , 
she was assigned the role of senior security consultant without undergoing any specific training 
on the petitioning organi zation's tools. services, or methodologies. The Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary ' s work experience either on and other third-party technologies 
or as a security consultant constitutes "specialized knowledge ," such that her knowledge is 
5 
.
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
distinct or uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the IT 
consulting industry. 
The Petitioner claims that "[i]t would be unfeasible to train a US worker in the knowledge that [the 
Beneficiary] possesses, since the knowledge was gained overseas and required at least one year of 
experience on upgrade projects at [the foreign employer] in India to gain it:' The 
Petitioner, however, does not explain the Beneficiary's ability to immediately begin work as a senior 
security consultant for the foreign entity without training in the petitioning organization's 
specific methods, services, and tools. The record also does not include evidence of required training 
in the Petitioner's own specific tools, methods, services, and procedures relating to this technology. 
Without detailed information on the Petitioner's internal tools and services relating to software 
and the required training to effectively use the software, the record does not establish that knowledge 
of Oracle's software, or more specifically the security component, is distinct or uncommon 
within the ERP software field. Based on the minimal information and evidence submitted regarding 
the system and the Petitioner's internal tools and services, and 
any associated training 
requirements, it appears more likely than not that the system is similar to other ERP software 
and requires limited or no training, relying instead on basic IT skills and ERP domain familiarity. 
A petitioner's statements may provide persuasive evidence of specialized knowledge if they are 
detailed, specific, and credible. Here, the Petitioner asks us to put great weight on its statements 
regarding the Beneficiary's knowledge of its products and services. However, the record lacks 
probative evidence demonstrating that extensive training is required to perform the duties it claims 
are different from that of other technicians, either within or outside of the organization. While there 
likely are no employees with the exact same knowledge the Beneficiary possesses, the record does 
not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge is in fact significantly different from that generally 
held by professionals in the Petitioner's industry, or that it would require up to a full year or longer 
to acquire the knowledge needed for the U.S. position. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special 
knowledge of the company's services and their application in international markets. 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner has not established, m the alternative, that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge. 
Determinations concerning "advanced knowledge" require review of a beneficiary's knowledge of 
the petitioning organization's processes and procedures. A petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidence that a given 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. Also, as with special knowledge, the petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate 
.
Maller of K-1-, Inc. 
that a beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the particular industry and cannot 
be easily imparted from one person to another. 
The Petitioner acknowledges that it has over 200 employees who work with the technology 
after acquiring "the world ' s largest solution provider" in May 2011. The Petitioner also 
asserts that only around three to five percent of these employees have specialized or advanced 
knowledge of the technology. 6 However, the Petitioner has not clarified how it distinguishes 
these employees from other software professionals, either within or outside the Petitioner 's group, 
who are trained and experienced in this third-party technology. It is reasonable to believe that an 
experienced software analyst who has worked with technology or other ERP software systems 
would reasonably be familiar with this type of technology and the functionalities and modules built 
into each system. 
We have considered the Petitioner ' s implied claim that the Beneficiary's quantity of experience sets 
her apart from her colleagues. We also note that the foreign entity placed the Beneficiary's position 
over four other consultants. However, the Petitioner has not included evidence demonstrating 
when the Beneficiary's colleagues were hired, their specific training, and when they began working 
on specific projects. Nor has the Petitioner provided detailed information regarding the work they 
actually performed. The Petitioner does not specify if all of its technical employees are required to 
train on specific components of the petitioning organization 's processes and procedures prior to 
working for it or prior to working on a specific project. Nor has the Petitioner identified how any of 
the Beneficiary 's training differs from training received by the petitioning organization's other 
employees. It is not possible to ascertain from the record that the Beneficiary's duties at the foreign 
entity required advanced knowledge , greater than other workers implementing and upgrading 
systems, or greater than others within the petitioning organization. 
Any client project executed by the petitioning company or any other 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 . The Petitioner as a practical 
matter has many employees assigned to work on projects . The evidence does not support the 
Petitioner 's claim that the Beneficiary is one of a few employees in the organization capable of 
implementing and upgrading for its clients. Rather , it is reasonable to conclude that 
many employees have one year of experience working in this domain. Without a more detailed 
6 The Petitioner also states that only '' I% to 3%" of its 9000 employees worldwide hold specialized knowledge and that 
the Beneficiary tits within this class of special employees. However, the Petitioner's claim that certain employees are 
deemed special and advanced by their mere inclusion within a certain undefined class is insufficient. The Petitioner 
must do more than articulate that a few of its employees hold special and/or advanced knowledge within its 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. 
Matter of K-1-, Inc. 
explanation of the Beneficiary's specific knowledge and how her knowledge compares to others 
within the organization, the Petitioner has not established that her history working in this area 
offshore is sufficient to establish advanced knowledge. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient 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 her 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 than is generally found within the employer. For the foregoing reasons, the 
Beneficiary does not satisfy the requirements for possessing specialized knowledge. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. As the evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge, we also cannot conclude that she has been employed abroad and would be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of'K-1-, inc., ID# 94710 (AAO Jan. 19, 2018) 
8