dismissed L-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : SEPT. 13, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , a software development company , seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its 
"Lead Java Developer" under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
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 of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish , as required , that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he was employed 
abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity and would has the qualifications to be employed in a 
specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
On appeal , the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision is not consistent with decisions we 
previously issued in other cases where we addressed specialized knowledge. The Petitioner cites to 
several unpublished decisions to support its claim that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge and has been and would be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity . 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and that he was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States 
in a specialized knowledge capacity. Therefore , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B nonimrnigrant 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)(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. Id. The petitioner 
Matter of A-LLC 
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). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is an IT company that uses its proprietary software platforms - ~------~ I I-to "improve IT efficiency and business profitability" and assist customers in building custom 
software to meet their business needs. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would work 
primarily withl I, which it described as al I tool used for web applications. It 
also stated that a "highly technical engineer" is needed to work withl I and listed the following 
job requirements for the proposed position: a master's degree in a technical field, 6+ years of software 
engineering experience, "solid skills" using the I I framework" and experience using Java SE 
and Java EE, a "[ w ]orking knowledge" in using and customizing I I "[h ]ands[-Jon 
experience" in designing, devf1opingl and deploying Java-based web applications, "experience with 
I I architecture and cloud services design and development," and general working 
competences, including technical and management skills, fluency in English, and the ability to 
communicate orally and in writing. 
Although the Petitioner listed some of I I's distinguishing characteristics, stating that it does 
not require coding, "element ids," or "checks and assertions" to complete automation, it did not explain 
why specialized knowledge is required to work with this platform. Rather, the Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary is the "best fit" for its U.S. position because of his experience with I land Java 
web applications. It also pointed to the Beneficiary's approximately 18 months of experience in 
working with its foreign affiliate at the time this petition was filed, indicating that the Beneficiary 
meets the above-listed job requirements. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter 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. 
In the denial decision, the Director found that the submitted evidence did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's foreign or proposed job duties require knowledge that is either special or advanced. The 
Director also noted that the Petitioner did not explain what is deemed to be a "high level of trouble 
shooting skills" with regard to thd I platform and determined that the record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary's level of knowledge is different from knowledge that is ordinarily held 
by other individuals in the same field. 
As a threshold issue, 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 past and intended future 
employment involve specialized knowledge. 1 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
Matter of A-LLC 
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 Petitioner's supporting statements contained a list of the Beneficiary's 
proposed job duties and requirements for the lroposed position. The Petitioner focused on the 
Beneficiary's experience working withl in his current position as the foreign entity's "Lead 
Java Developer," indicating that he possesses the education, skills, and experience necessary to meet 
the requirements of the proposed U.S. position. Although the Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary's "consistently great performance" in his position with the foreign affiliate is the reason 
he was offered the U.S. position, it did not distinguish the Beneficiary's experience and knowledge 
from that of other IT professionals who similarly work with clients in business automation; nor did 
the Petitioner point to specific characteristics that demonstrate the Beneficiary's specialized 
3 
Matter of A-LLC 
knowledge. The Petitioner also listed the Beneficiary's job duties, but did not explain why specialized 
knowledge is required to perform them. Rather, the Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary's 
educational credentials and years of experience prior to assuming his position with the foreign entity; 
it did not, however, explain how either the Beneficiary's level of education or his prior work 
experience resulted in his attaining knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. 
Further, the Petitioner provided a letter from the foreign entity's director, who included a chart 
comparing the Beneficiary's level of knowledge as a "high-level programmer" to that of others 
occupying similar positons in the same field. The chart identifies the Beneficiary's level of knowledge 
as "high" in several job categories where others' levels of knowledge were identified as either "low" 
or "medium." However, the letter does not explain how the Beneficiary attained this higher level of 
knowledge and indicates that most of his knowledge pertains to tools that are widely used by 
programmers within the IT industry. Only one of the 12 categories listed in the chart pertained 
specifically to the Petitioner's software product; that said, the chart indicates that it would take other 
Java developers only two to six months to achieve the Beneficiary's level of knowledge, thus 
indicating that someone in the Beneficiary's field could acquire his level of knowledge in a reasonably 
short period of time. 
The Petitioner also provided a business plan, which contains a section titled "Management Team and 
Key Personnel." That Beneficiary was not named in that list, which includes the company's founder 
and CEO, the vice presidents of U.S. and Ukraine delivery, respectively, the vice president of human 
resources, and the vice president of solutions. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted that the Petitioner did not provide evidence 
establishing that the Beneficiary performed duties that required specialized knowledge and likened the 
Beneficiary to a typical lead Java developer. The Director asked the Petitioner to identify the type of 
specialized knowledge it claims the Beneficiary has attained, explain how and when the Beneficiary 
gained his claimed specialized knowledge, and compare and contrast the Beneficiary's duties and 
knowledge from those of others employed in the organization or within the industry. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a statement asserting that the Beneficiary's lead Java developer 
position is that of a professional requiring a minimum of a master's degree in computer science or a 
related field because of the "specialized and complex" nature of the duties assigned to that position. 
The Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary's level of education, stating that the required courses, 
"rigorous testing and challenging case studies," as well as an understanding of 'various theories and 
methods" that are associated with the graduate level of study in computer science or related field 
"directly correspond to and prepare the student for the specific responsibilities of the position." The 
Petitioner distinguished the Beneficiary's "Specialty Occupation" position from that of "a 
[t]echnologist or an IT-support employee" referring to the latter as "non-specialty occupation 
workers"; the Petitioner credited the Beneficiary's "superior background," which includes a master's 
degree in computer science or a related field, as the reason for his ability to execute the duties of a 
"highly skilled leadership role." 
The Petitioner also provided an "evaluation" of the Beneficiary, taking into account his education, 
prior work experience, and experience in his current position as the foreign affiliate's lead Java 
4 
Matter of A-LLC 
developer. The Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary "has satisfied requirements that are substantially 
similar to those required toward the completion of a Master's Degree program ... in the United States" 
and pointed to the Beneficiary's six years of "specialized training and work experience in Computer 
Science and related areas" during which the Beneficiary assumed a position that was "commensurate 
with Master's level training." The Petitioner did not state or describe any training the Beneficiary may 
have received beyond the courses he took to complete his master's degree. The Petitioner also did not 
specify any type of specialized knowledge the Beneficiary gained during his six years of employment 
with another entity or explain how that experience led to the Beneficiary's claimed specialized 
knowledge of the foreign entity's proprietary software tools. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish 
that specialized knowledge is required to work with the Screenster software tool, which has been the 
focus of the Beneficiary's employment abroad and would remain the focus of the proposed position 
in the United States. 
Although the Petitioner also claimed that the Beneficiary's period of employment with the foreign 
entity "reflect[ s] experience and training in positions of progressively increasing responsibility," it did 
not point to any progressive changes in the Beneficiary's knowledge with respect to the foreign entity's 
software tools or point to specific factors that prompted the alleged progression. The Petitioner must 
support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). Here, the record shows that the Beneficiary assumed the position 
oflead Java developer and remained in that position during the entire course of his employment with 
the foreign entity. The Petitioner did not state or provide evidence of any training the Beneficiary may 
have received or demonstrate that the Beneficiary's job duties progressively increased in their levels 
of complexity to indicate that specialized knowledge had been acquired during the Beneficiary's 
period of employment with the foreign entity. Although the Petitioner listed several new I I 
features that the Beneficiary created, including new.__ ______ _. frameworks based on his 
analysis of customer feedback, it did it explain why specialized knowledge was necessary to create 
this or any of the other new features it listed. Rather, the Petitioner vaguely referred to the 
Beneficiary's "extremely high level experience in unique computer programming matters" that other 
lead Java developers in the same organization do not possess, but it did not describe any such "unique 
computer programming matters" or list characteristics distinguishing the Beneficiary's knowledge as 
specialized in comparison to others in his organization or in the IT industry. Further, other than 
referencing the Beneficiary's level of education and work experience with another unrelated entity, 
the Petitioner did not state how the Beneficiary attained knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts several claims that were previously raised in response to the RFE 
and raises certain new claims, asserting that "the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge that is unique 
to [its organization] and not transferable to other software development companies." However, the 
Petitioner does not point to what is unique about the Beneficiary's knowledge, establish that the 
"unique" knowledge rises to the level of being specialized, or explain why the transferability of such 
knowledge "to other software development companies" is relevant to the issue of whether the 
knowledge is specialized. Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is one of only two 
employees within the same organization that work with thel I platform, it does not claim or 
provide evidence establishing that this distinction was the result of having acquired specialized 
knowledge. Likewise, the Petitioner has not established that specialized knowledge enabled the 
Beneficiary to grow "an extensive knowledge of specific visual and textual algorithms" that he has 
5 
Matter of A-LLC 
used to improve I I. Further, as indicated in the previously described comparison chart, the 
Beneficiary's level of knowledge regarding I II can be transferred to another Java developer 
within a range of two to six months. Although the Petitioner describes the facts pertaining to several 
unpublished AAO decisions, it does not established that the facts of this petition are analogous to those 
in the unpublished decisions. Moreover, while 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent 
decisions are binding on USCIS, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
In sum, we find that the Petitioner did not establish a clear path for gaining specialized knowledge 
within its organization or demonstrate that, in fact, the Beneficiary gained such knowledge. Rather, 
the Petitioner focused primarily on the Beneficiary's level of education and his years of employment 
with another entity, but did not establish that there is a nexus between these elements and the 
specialized knowledge that the Beneficiary is claimed to have acquired with regard to the I I 
software tool he used and developed during his employment with the foreign entity. As such, the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary acquired specialized knowledge and was employed 
abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-LLC, ID# 6013989 (AAO Sept. 13, 2019) 
6