dismissed L-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 67039,09 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 3, 2020 
PETITION: Form I-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner is a software development and IT operations company. It seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a "Senior Java Developer" in its new office 1 under the L-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees who possess specialized knowledge. Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity 
because he does not have the qualifications to perform the intended services for the U.S. entity. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB 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 101 ( a)( l 5)(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 . Id. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
If a beneficiary is coming in a specialized knowledge capacity to open a new office, the petitioner must 
submit evidence that it secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation, evidence that the 
new business entity is or will be a qualifying organization, and evidence that it has the financial ability 
to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United States. See generally, 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(vi). 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which bas been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is an IT company that provides software solutions "for collaborative communications 
and network operations" in the telecommunications industry. The Petitioner states that in his proposed 
position, the Beneficiary will use his existing knowledge of a client's billing system to write "high­
quality" Java code, design and develop the automated test platform and test suites, and assist with 
troubleshooting to develop a new billing system for that client. The Petitioner describes the proposed 
position as requiring "an advanced understanding of [the Petitioner]'s infrastructure and platforms" 
and their intended use as well as knowledge of "common issues" and patterns in the organization's 
infrastructure and platforms. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has the knowledge and 
"extensive experience" with the Petitioner's proprietary technology, which it claims are necessary 
prerequisites for the proposed position. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's qualifications include a bachelor's degree in computer 
science, 17 years of experience as a software developer, and over three years of experience as a senior 
developer with the foreign parent entity. It therefore claims that the Beneficiary has "specialized, 
proprietary knowledge" of the company's "advanced systems" and the billing system of the 
Petitioner's only client. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and is therefore qualified for employment in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
In the denial decision, the Director acknowledged the Beneficiary's understanding and use of software 
writing programs, but found that such knowledge is not uncommon in the software industry and 
therefore it is not distinguished from knowledge that is possessed by others in the software 
development industry. The Director also found that the Petitioner did not provide evidence to support 
the claim that the Beneficiary has skills that are rare and unique within the industry or within the 
petitioning organization and determined that the Beneficiary is not qualified for employment in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
As a threshold matter, we must determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. If the evidence is insufficient to establish that he possesses 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's position with the foreign parent 
entity and his intended employment in the United States involve specialized knowledge. 2 
Accordingly, prior to examining the Beneficiary's qualifications to carry out the assigned duties of the 
intended position in the United States, we must first contemplate the more foundational issue of 
whether the Beneficiary possess specialized knowledge. The Petitioner cannot establish that the 
Beneficiary warrants classification as an intracompany transferee without first meeting this basic 
evidentiary threshold, regardless of whether the Beneficiary is qualified for the intended position. 
2 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge ifhe or she has: (1) a "special" knowledge of 
the company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" level of 
knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. A 
petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition. 
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 special or advanced, and that the beneficiary's position 
requires such knowledge. 
Special knowledge concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its 
application in international markets. To establish that a beneficiary has special knowledge, 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. 
Because "advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, 
the petitioning entity may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge of or 
an 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. 
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 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, the nature of the specific industry or field involved, and the 
nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how and when the 
individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
In the present matter, the record includes a supporting cover letter stating that the Beneficiary is an 
experienced software developer who applies his knowledge of Java code to design and develop a new 
billing system for the Petitioner's client. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's position is 
essential to its ability to provide its services "at a level that meets and exceeds expectations of the U.S. 
market" and claimed that the position is "highly specialized and requires an advanced understanding" 
of the Petitioner's infrastructure and platforms. The Petitioner did not, however, provide insight about 
its infrastructure and platforms or point to the specific features or characteristics they encompass to 
establish that specialized knowledge is necessary to gain an "advanced understanding" of these 
components. The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary has an "in-depth knowledge of the client's 
current Java programming language and its libraries and framework" and stated that the Beneficiary 
3 
would "work with other members of the product team" and "contribute" to the system's design, 
architecture, and development, thereby indicating that developing the client's billing system is done 
in collaboration with other employees. The Petitioner did not disclose any information about the other 
contributors, nor did it distinguish the Beneficiary's knowledge from other members of the team or 
explain how that knowledge is uncommon within the industry. 
The Petitioner also listed the Beneficiary's job duties, but did not explain why specialized knowledge 
is required to perform them. Likewise, the Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary's "in-depth 
knowledge" of its in-house automated testing platforms and his ability to tailor those platforms to fit 
client needs, but it did not provide farther information about the testing platforms, qualify what is 
meant by "in-depth knowledge," or distinguish that knowledge from other Java developers within the 
industry. In addition, the Petitioner provided a copy of the Beneficiary's resume, which states that the 
Beneficiary has been working for the foreign entity since October 2015 and indicates that during the 
course of such employment he has held the position of senior Java developer and worked on a client's 
billing system. The resume also includes a list of Microsoft certificates the Beneficiary received in 
2003 and 2004; the Petitioner did not explain how, if at all, attaining these certificates relates to 
specialized knowledge of the foreign entity. Further, the Petitioner did not indicate that the foreign 
organization had a training process in place through which specialized knowledge could be obtained 
nor did it point to specific characteristics of its products, services, processes, or procedures to establish 
that the Beneficiary's experience with the foreign entity resulted in his gaining specialized knowledge. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of third party scripting programs is uncommon for software developers 
within the IT industry and instructed the Petitioner to provide evidence of the Beneficiary's former 
education and training that relates to his claimed specialized knowledge, explain how such knowledge 
or expertise is either "special" or "advanced," and compare the knowledge required to perform the 
Beneficiary's duties to similarly employed individuals within the industry. 
In response, the Petitioner repeated much of the information contained in the original supporting 
statement and claimed that the Beneficiary was chosen for the U.S. position because of his experience 
with "proprietary and innovative technological projects" during his employment with the foreign 
entity where he was "the primary innovator" and the developer of "new technology and techniques" 
used in the creation of a client's billing system. The Petitioner did not describe any proprietary 
technological projects and reiterated the Beneficiary's job duties, emphasizing his critical role in an 
essential project and his "expert knowledge of the U.S. taxation domain," which was claimed to be 
unique in comparison to other employees within the organization. However, the Petitioner did not 
establish that "expert knowledge" is synonymous with specialized knowledge and instead focused on 
the Beneficiary's knowledge of a programming interface, a software developing kit, and the "client's 
cloud taxation provider" without establishing these as components of specialized knowledge of the 
Petitioner's products, services, processes, or procedures. 
Further, the Petitioner pointed out that the Beneficiary has spent two years developing the client's 
proprietary billing system, emphasizing the cost of its investment into this project and the difficulty 
of bringing another qualified individual to work on it in its current stage. However, the Petitioner did 
state that the Beneficiary underwent any required training to perform his assigned duties or describe 
the process for acquiring the Beneficiary's claimed level of specialized knowledge. The Petitioner 
4 
also did not clarify that the Beneficiary's knowledge was specific to the employer's products, services, 
processes, or procedures and focused primarily on the Beneficiary's knowledge of the client's 
proprietary billing system. Despite claiming that the Beneficiary is "the only individual within [the 
employing organization] qualified to continue to work on this project," the Petitioner did not describe 
the nature of the specialized knowledge as it relates to its organization or define a path for acquiring 
such knowledge. According to the Beneficiary's resume, his position did not change or escalate during 
the course of his employment with the foreign entity and there was no indication from the 
Beneficiary's job duty breakdown that his job duties progressed in complexity so as to indicate that 
the Beneficiary acquired new knowledge that could be deemed specialized. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director "almost completely ignored" the Beneficiary's 
leading role in the development of a client's proprietary billing system and cites to the USCIS Policy 
Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-lB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015) to support the claim that the 
Beneficiary's prominent role in the client project should be considered as the key indicator that he 
possesses specialized knowledge. We find, however, that the cited memorandum does not support the 
Petitioner's argument, which focuses on the Beneficiary's knowledge of a client's proprietary billing 
system and does not indicate that the Beneficiary possesses either "special" knowledge of his 
employer's products or services or "advanced" knowledge of the employer's processes or procedures. 
The Petitioner also cites to an unpublished decision in which we determined that a beneficiary, who 
was employed as a software engineer, met the specialized knowledge criteria. However, the Petitioner 
has not established that the facts of this petition are analogous to those in the unpublished decision 
where the petitioner provided evidence pertaining to the beneficiary's training, progressive experience, 
and unique work assignments and demonstrated that the beneficiary was one of few employees who 
possessed knowledge of the employing entity's proprietary system and advanced knowledge of 
internal and company-specific processes and procedures. The Petitioner in this instance provided no 
evidence showing that the Beneficiary received training that contributed to the acquisition of 
specialized knowledge, nor did it demonstrate that the Beneficiary progressed in his level of 
knowledge or experience. Rather, as noted earlier, the Beneficiary's resume indicates that he was 
hired and continues to serve as the foreign entity's senior Java developer since October 2015 and has 
worked on a client's billing system during the course of his employment. Most importantly, unlike 
the beneficiary in the cited case, the Beneficiary in this instance has not been shown to possess 
knowledge that is company-specific. To the contrary, the Petitioner repeatedly emphasizes that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is client-based. Thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary in this instance warrants LlB classification as the individual in the unpublished case. 
Moreover, we note that while 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding 
on USCIS, unpublished decisions, including the one cited in this instance, are not similarly binding. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director placed undue emphasis on the fact that the Beneficiary 
uses software tools that are commonly used by other software developers, arguing that the Director 
should focus instead on how the Beneficiary uses those tools to determine whether he possesses 
specialized knowledge. However, the Petitioner does not describe how the Beneficiary used software 
tools or distinguish his use of those tools from the way they are commonly used by other software 
developers. Moreover, even if the Petitioner were to establish that the Beneficiary's use of common 
software tools is different from the way other developers use them, it has not established that this 
purportedly uncommon usage of software tools is linked to specialized knowledge of the Petitioner's 
5 
products, services, processes, or procedures. Likewise, the Beneficiary's claimed "in-depth 
involvement" in developing the client's billing system and his "prior experience" and "expert 
knowledge of the U.S taxation domain" do not establish that the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
specialized or that it is specific to the Petitioner's organization. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not specified that the knowledge the Beneficiary possesses is specific to its 
organization's products, services, processes, or procedures, nor has it stated precisely how and when 
the Beneficiary acquired knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. Further, although the Petitioner 
provided a list of the Beneficiary's typical job duties, it did not indicate that his duties progressed in 
levels of difficulty that corresponded with any increased levels of knowledge, nor did it point to 
specific job duties that required specialized knowledge to execute. Thus, despite claiming that the 
Beneficiary's use of commonly used software is distinct from other software developers, the Petitioner 
has not identified any distinguishing characteristics in the Beneficiary's knowledge nor established 
that his claimed specialized knowledge is specific to the employing organization's products or services 
or to its internal processes or procedures. The Petitioner also neglected to specify a path for acquiring 
the knowledge that it claims is specialized, nor has it provided evidence showing how the Beneficiary 
acquired such knowledge. 
In light of the deficiencies described above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6