dismissed L-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave.. N W . Rm. 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
identifjriw bt. &lctd to 
prevent ciearly mwarmnted 
invasim of @VWY 
pUBLlC Copy 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: SRC 05 116 50396 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
1 7 2006 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
+obert P. Wiernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 05 1 16 50396 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seelung to employ the beneficiary in the position of 
programmer and Java specialist as an L-1B nonimmigrant intracompany transferee with specialized 
knowledge pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 
1 101 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Florida corporation, is a provider of propertv and casualtv insurance. The 
petitioner claims to be an affiliate of the beneficiary's foreign employer, 
located in Bogota, Colombia. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the position offered to 
the beneficiary requires someone with specialized knowledge or that the beneficiary has such knowledge. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner has satisfied the criteria for establishing that 
the beneficiary is a specialized knowledge employee, and that CIS misapplied current standards set forth in 
section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act and agency memoranda. Counsel for the petitioner explains that the U.S. 
entity is a new office and the "personnel hired there must be of the greatest caliber and expertise in order to 
offset losses that are inherently related to the costs of starting a business." Counsel for the petitioner further 
asserts an "external" programmer would not have the expertise that arises from countless hours of training 
with [the petitioner's] proprietary software." Counsel concludes that the petitioner has established that the 
beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge of the petitioner's processes and procedures and therefore 
qualifies for the benefit sought. Counsel submits a brief in support of the appeal. 
To establish L-1 eligbility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, withn three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualifying organization and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(3) mher states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ 
the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this 
section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services 
to be performed. 
SRC 05 1 16 50396 
Page 3 
(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 himher 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. 
This matter presents two related, but distinct issues: (1) whether the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge; and (2) whether the proposed employment is in a capacity that requires specialized knowledge. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1184(c)(2)(B), provides: 
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. 9 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines "specialized knowledge" as: 
[Slpecial 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. 
In a letter dated March 1, 2005, submitted with the petition, the petitioner stated "as programmer and Java 
programmer specialist, [the beneficiary] has been important in the develop [sic] and deployment of TronWeb 
in [the foreign entity] and he will be responsible for the deployment at The Company of the TronWeb 
Systems, central software for the internal and external process in [the petitioner]." 
In addition, the petitioner provided the following list of duties for the beneficiary's proposed position as a 
programmer specialist and Java developer: 
Plan, develop, test and control the activities regarding TronWeb applications and JAVATron 
components. (TronWeb and JAVATron are components of Tronador Systems); develop, 
test and document the implementation and deployment of the Web's applications, in order to 
increase the efficiency of The Company's external transaction using Internet; develop, test 
and document the implementation and deployment of the TronWeb Systems, applying 
knowledge of programming techniques and computer systems in accordance with The 
Company's needs, standards, and procedures; evaluate user request for new or modified 
programs; consult with user to identifjr current operating procedures, and clarifjr program 
objectives; read manuals, periodicals, and technical reports to learn ways to develop 
SRC 05 116 50396 
Page 4 
programs that meet The Company's requirements; formulate plan outlining steps required to 
develop TronWeb Systems, using structured analysis and design; prepare flowcharts and 
diagrams to illustrate sequence of steps program must follow and to describe logical 
operations involved; design computer terminal screen displays to accomplish goals of the 
operations of the business; convert project specifications, using flowcharts and diagrams into 
sequences of detailed instructions and logical steps for coding into language that can be 
processed by the computer, applylng knowledge of computer programming techniques and 
computer languages; enter program codes into computer system and commands to run and 
test program; read computer printouts or observe display screen to detect syntax or logic 
errors during program test, or use diagnostic software to detect errors; replace, delete or 
modifL codes to correct errors; analyze, review, and alter program to increase operating 
efficiency or adapt to new requirements in conformity with the goals established by 
MAPFRE corporate standards and procedures; write documentation to describe program 
development, logic, coding, and corrections; write manual for users to describe installation 
and operating; assist users to solve operating problems; recreate steps taken by user to locate 
source of problem and rewrite program to correct errors; use computer-aided software tools, 
such as flowchart design and code generation in each stage of system development; train 
other employees to use computer programs; install and test program at user site; provide 
technical assistance to program users; monitor performance of program after 
implementation; develop TronWeb Systems program for business of technical applications, 
in order to increase the efficiency of The Company's operations consonant with the 
guidelines and procedures of [the parent company]. 
The petitioner submitted an organizational chart for the U.S. company. The chart indicates that the chief 
executive officer supervises the head df the information technology division who then supervises two 
TronWeb Specialists and the beneficiary's position as Java Specialist. 
The petitioner described the beneficiary's duties with the foreign company as a JAVA Expert to include: 
"plan, implement and control all of the activities related to the application of TronWeb and the components of 
JAVATron Guarantee correct upgrade of the platform and applications." The position requires a minimum 
of "one year experience in the development of information and program solution in computers utilizing the 
basic technical resolution." In addition, the position prefers knowledge and experience in "ORACLE and 
development of ORACLE and JAVA with UNIX and Windows, Visual Tool in a Window environment." 
On March 25, 2005, the director issued a notice requesting additional evidence that the beneficiary's 
knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy or distinguished by some unusual quality and not generally known by 
practitioners in the field. The director also requested evidence to establish that the beneficiary's knowledge 
of the processes and procedures of the petitioner is apart from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed 
by others. 
Specifically, the director requested: (1) evidence relating to the unique methodologies, tools, programs, 
andlor applications that the petitioning company uses, including a detail explanation of how these are 
different from the methodologes, tools, programs andlor application used by other companies; (2) a detailed 
explanation of the equipment, system, product, technique, or service of which the beneficiary has specialized 
SRC 05 1 16 50396 
Page 5 
knowledge, and indicate if it is used or produced by other employers in the United States and abroad; (3) 
explanation as to whether the beneficiary is currently worlung on a specific project abroad and if he will be 
worlung on the same project in the U.S., including supporting documentation, if applicable; (4) a record from 
the human resources department detailing the manner in which the beneficiary has gained his specialized 
knowledge; (5) a statement indicating the minimum amount of time required to train an employee to fill the 
position offered to the beneficiary and specifLing how many employees fill ths position and if they received 
the required training; (6) an explanation as to whether the petitioner is seelung to bring the beneficiary to the 
U.S. to provide training in the area of his claimed specialized knowledge and a detailed statement of the 
training the beneficiary will provide other employees; (7) a detailed statement as to whether the beneficiary 
will receive training in the US. and an explanation of that training; (8) an explanation of why a U.S. worker 
cannot perform the job offered to the beneficiary; and (9) information as to whether the petitioner has filed 
any other petitions for L-1B classification with the past 12 months, including each beneficiary's name, 
position description and title. 
In response, counsel for the petitioner submitted a letter, dated April 6, 2005, responding to the director's 
request. In response to the director's request for evidence establishing that the beneficiary's knowledge is 
uncommon, noteworthy or distinguished by some unusual quality and not generally known by practitioners in 
the field and that this knowledge is apart from the basic knowledge possessed by others, counsel for the 
petitioner asserted the following: 
a) The position of Programmer and Java Specialist must be performed by a holder of at 
least a baccalaureate degree in Computer Systems and must be occupied by someone 
that understands and has the expertise in the intricate software created by and utilized by 
the parent company . . . . 
b) The beneficiary has been employed in [the foreign entity] for the past 10 years. During 
thls lengthy period of time, he has acquired the knowledge and experience necessary to 
occupy this position. Further, during this time, he has participated in projects where his 
knowledge of the standard, methodologies and tools used by the parent company . . . 
were essential. 
In support of the above-mentioned assertions, the petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity, dated 
April 28, 2005, detailing the primary functions that the beneficiary must carry out daily within the 
information technology management office in the company abroad. The duties are the following: 
Functions: 
Analyze the modification-requirement definitions to the TRONWEB applications server. 
Carry out modifications to the TRONWEB applications server, malung sure that the changes 
are made to all the servers (Development, Production, Historical and Branch Zero). 
Maintain constant monitoring over the performance of the applications servers, talung the 
necessary corrective measures in order to guarantee good response times. 
Apply the upgrades on the TRONWEB applications server, malung sure that these updates 
are applied in a correct fashion across the different servers (Development, Production, 
Historical and Branch Zero). 
SRC 05 1 16 50396 
Page 6 
Maintain control of the TRONWEB applications server, malung sure that they are at their 
latest update, avoiding downtime because of malfunctioning updates. 
Keep the applications server and the database updated in accord with the CIMS that 
MapfreSoft sends periodically, following a procedure that guarantees the correct fbnctioning 
of the systems at different stages, development, testing and production. 
Keep updated the documentation on the creation and changes to the TRONWEB 
applications server. 
Develop routines that ease the TRONWEB applications servers and their updates. 
Provide support to the Applications Direction Office in the implementation of new solutions 
of software applications related to the Java platform. 
Execute and complete work plans and schedules. 
Support the Applications Direction Office in the creation of administration procedures for 
the TRONWEB applications server and the application methodology and update control. 
Comply with the application of the administration and update methodology of the 
TRONWEB applications server. 
Inform the Applications Direction Office and Information Technology Management 
regarding any setbacks that have occurred or the need for resources that may adversely affect 
the availability of the TRONWEB applications servers. 
Make improvements to the work methodology, standards and procedures. 
Provide support to the Direction Office of Technology and Applications, maintaining a high 
level of coordination and teamwork among the different direction offices. 
Guard the TRONWEB applications server, guaranteeing its availability according the 
operational needs of the company. 
Provide support in everything related to the TRONWEB applications server. 
Attend the periodic meetings set by the Applications Director. 
In response to the director's request for evidence relating to the unique methodologies, tools, programs andlor 
applications that the company uses and how they are different from the methodologies, tools and programs 
used by other companies, counsel for the petitioner states, "Tronador is a central information system designed 
and developed by [the foreign entity], following the corporate policies defined by the parent company." The 
petitioner submitted a training manual of Tronador, a letter fiom the petitioner describing the Tronador 
system, and a program license. 
In a letter dated May 5,2005, the petitioner describes the Tronador system as the following: 
Developed by a team of computer specialists of [the parent company] in Spain, this software 
is sent to each company around the world, where personnel specializing in every country 
takes charge personalizing it, adapting it to political own, legislation and local market, 
without losing its scheme that demands our headquarters. 
Technically developed with latest computer technology, Tronador is executed on operating 
system UNK (HP-UX o AD() with a database ORACLE; his interface user (screens) has a 
Web approach, across our components JAVA and the required software of development are 
PLISQL Developer from Oracle. 
SRC 05 116 50396 
Page 7 
It is a computer integral system that supports the management of the different area of an 
insurer. (Persons' administration or thrd parties, issuance, claims, reinsurance, cashing, 
accounts for paying, commissions and accounting). 
For his great number of options and diversity of functionality, Tronador requires in his 
implantation both; a computer specializing team and a group of functional analysts. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted the following evidence in response of the director's request: a letter from 
the foreign entity detailing the specific projects in which the beneficiary has parhcipated; a detailed list of the 
training taken by the beneficiary that qualifies him for the position of Java Specialist; certificates for courses 
and seminars taken by the beneficiary; a letter from the human resources department of the foreign company 
confirming that the beneficiary has been employed with the company since August 17, 1993; copies of 
diplomas awarded to the beneficiary; and documentation regarding three L-1B petitions filed by the 
petitioner. 
On May 27, 2005, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the 
position of programmer and Java specialist requires someone with specialized knowledge, or that the 
beneficiary has such knowledge. The director noted that the beneficiary's duties do not appear to be 
significantIy different from those of any other computer programmers employed by the petitioner, or different 
from the duties performed by other programmers in the computer industry. The director also noted that the 
petitioner did not demonstrate that the petitioner's processes and procedures are significantly different from 
the methods generally used by other insurance companies. Finally, the director suggested that the 
beneficiary's knowledge is not noteworthy or uncommon, and the training received by the beneficiary is 
standard training given to all employees with computer experience withn the company. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner reiterates the job duties to be performed by the beneficiary in the United 
States, and asserts that the position requires specialized knowledge in order to successfully perform the duties 
required of the position. Counsel for the petitioner further states that TRONWEB is the "proprietary software 
developed by the [the petitioner's] family of corporations . . . . This software is the central hub of all business 
in [the petitioner]: through various modules, it permits the assessment of insurance and casualty claims, the 
prosecution of claims company-wide." In addition, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the U.S. entity is a 
new domestic enterprise and the personnel hired must be of "the greatest caliber and expertise in order to 
offset the losses that are inherently related to the costs of starting a business." Counsel for the petitioner 
Mher states that the beneficiary is more qualified for the position than any other programmer from a 
competing company. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has satisfied the factors utilized to 
determine specialized knowledge as outlined in two legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
memoranda. See Memorandum from James A. Puleo, Acting Exec. Assoc. Comm., INS, Interpretation of 
Special Knowledge (March 9, 1991)("Puleo Memo"); Memorandum from Fujie Ohata, Assoc. Cornrn., INS, 
Interpretation of Specialized Knowledge (December 20,2002)("0hata Memo"). 
Specifically, counsel asserts that the beneficiary meets the requirements set forth in the Puleo and Ohata 
memos in that he possesses (1) knowledge valuable for competitiveness; (2) unusual knowledge of foreign 
SRC 05 1 16 50396 
Page 8 
operating conditions; (3) experience with significant assignments abroad that were beneficial to the employer; 
and (4) knowledge that can only be gained with the employer or which can not be easily transferred. 
Counsel further emphasizes that according to the Ohata memorandum, the petitioner is not required to 
establish that the claimed specialized knowledge is narrowly held withn the company. Finally, counsel 
asserts that the director's inquiry as to whether a U.S. worker could fill the offered position was inappropriate, 
as the Immigration Act of 1990 eliminated the prior requirement that the petitioner demonstrate that U.S. 
workers are not available to fill a specialized knowledge position. 
On review, the record as presently constituted is not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has been 
employed in a specialized knowledge position or that the beneficiary is to perform a job requiring specialized 
knowledge in the proffered U.S. position. In examining the specialized knowledge capacity of the 
beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8.C.F.R. 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
The petitioner must submit a detailed job description of the services to be performed sufficient to establish 
specialized knowledge. 
Although the petitioner repeatedly asserts that the beneficiary's proposed U.S. position requires specialized 
knowledge, the petitioner has not adequately articulated any basis to support this claim. The petitioner has 
provided a detailed description of the beneficiary's proposed responsibilities as a "programmer and Java 
specialist," however, the description does not mention the application of any specialized or advanced body of 
knowledge which would distinguish the beneficiary's role from that of other Java programmers employed by 
the petitioner or the insurance industry at large. Going on record without documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comrn. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). Based upon the lack of supporting evidence, the AAO cannot determine whether the U.S. position 
requires someone who possesses knowledge that rises to the level of specialized knowledge as defined at 8 
C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
The petitioner has repeatedly asserted that the beneficiary will "cany out modifications to the TRONWEB 
applications server," maintain constant monitoring over the performance of the applications server," and 
"apply the updates on the TRONWEB applications server," however, the petitioner does not establish that the 
beneficiary must possesses knowledge of business processes, procedures and methods of operation that are 
specific to the company in order to modify, maintain and update the applications server. There is no evidence 
in the record that the beneficiary actually participated in the development of such methodologes and 
processes that might lead to the conclusion that his level of knowledge is comparatively "advanced." The 
beneficiary's resume lists only specific projects in which he has participated in order to modify, maintain and 
update the server, but does not mention any experience in the development of internal policies or procedures. 
Again, simply going on record without documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
In addition, contrary to the assertions of counsel and the petitioner, there is no evidence on record to 
suggest that the computer programming processes and Java technology pertaining to insurance companies 
are different fkom those applied for any computer programming position. In addition, the petitioner has 
not explained how the knowledge of the petitioner's TRONWEB computer system amounts to specialized 
SRC 05 1 16 50396 
Page 9 
knowledge, particularly since the system is built upon Java, Oracle, Unix and PL/SQL technologies, all of 
which are commonly used by computer programmers and system administrators in the industry. While 
individual companies will develop a computer system tailored to its own needs and internal quality 
processes, it has not been established that there would be substantial differences such that knowledge of 
the petitioning company's processes and quality standards would amount to "specialized knowledge." 
In addition, there is no evidence in the record that the beneficiary has received specific in-house training that 
would have imparted him with the claimed "advanced" knowledge of the company's processes, procedures 
and methodologes. In the request for evidence, the director specifically requested that the petitioner identify 
the manner in which the beneficiary gained his specialized knowledge, including the total length of any 
classroom training or on-the-job training courses completed. In its response, the petitioner submitted a 
certification of participation from MAPFRE Insurance indicating that the beneficiary participated in the 
training program "Programming in Java for TRONWEB - Javatron" for a total of approximately 80 hours. 
This certificate appears to be the only training the beneficiary received with the TRONWEB application 
server while the remainder of his documented training was completed with external organizations and 
encompassed general subject matter such as Java, Oracle, and SQL technologies, to name a few. It is 
implausible that 80 hours of training with the TRONWEB application server is sufficient evidence to 
determine that the beneficiary has an advanced knowledge of the petitioner's application server. It is 
reasonable to believe that a computer systems professional with a background in Java and related 
technologes may learn the company's application server with minimum training. 
Based on the above, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion that the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary has acquired specialized knowledge as defined in the statute and regulations. 
Furthermore, in the request for evidence, the director instructed the petitioner to submit evidence of how the 
beneficiary's knowledge differs from the knowledge held by similarly employed individuals withn the 
company; evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy or distinguished by some 
unusual quality, or not generally known; evidence that the beneficiary possesses knowledge that is valuable to 
the employer's competitiveness; evidence that the beneficiary has been used abroad in significant 
assignments which have enhanced the employer's productivity, and evidence that the beneficiary is qualified 
to contribute to the United States employer's knowledge of foreign operating conditions. 
In the petitioner's response, counsel for the petitioner indicates that the position to be filled by the beneficiary 
requires an individual who has a bachelor's degree in Computer Systems and "someone that understands and 
has the expertise in the intricate software created by and utilized by the parent company." Counsel for the 
petitioner further states that the beneficiary has 10 years of experience with the parent company and he has 
"acquired the knowledge and experience necessary to occupy ths position." In addition, the petitioner 
submitted a letter from the parent company that details the specific projects in which the beneficiary has 
participated. The petitioner did not submit evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses knowledge 
that is valuable to the employer's competitiveness, or evidence that would allow CIS to compare the 
beneficiary's knowledge, training and experience to that of other similarly employed individuals withn the 
company, as requested by the director. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line 
of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). 
SRC 05 1 16 50396 
Page 10 
The AAO does not dispute the likelihood that the beneficiary is a programmer and Java specialist who 
understands Java technologies and is able to apply it within the context of the petitioner's specific 
environment. However, it is appropriate for the AAO to look beyond the stated job duties and consider the 
importance of the beneficiary's knowledge of the business's product or service, management operations or 
decision-malung process. Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. 1 17, 120 (Comm. 198 l)(citing Matter of Raulin, 13 
I&N Dec. 618(R.C. 1970) and Matter of LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 816 (R.C. 1971)).' As stated by the 
Commissioner in Matter of Penner, when considering whether the beneficiaries possessed specialized 
knowledge, "the LeBlanc and Raulin decisions did not find that the occupations inherently qualified the 
beneficiaries for the classifications sought." 18 I&N Dec. at 52. Rather, the beneficiaries were considered to 
have unusual duties, slulls, or knowledge beyond that of a skilled worker. Id. The Commissioner also 
provided the following clarification: 
A distinction can be made between a person whose slulls and knowledge enable him or her to 
produce a product through physical or slulled labor and the person who is employed primarily 
for his ability to carry out a key process or function which is important or essential to the 
business' operation. 
Id. at 53. 
It should be noted that the statutory definition of specialized knowledge requires the AAO to make 
comparisons in order to determine what constitutes specialized knowledge. The term "specialized 
knowledge" is not an absolute concept and cannot be clearly defined. As observed in 1756, Inc. v. Attorney 
General, "[s]imply put, specialized knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a plain meaning." 745 
F. Supp. at 15. The Congressional record specifically states that the L-1 category was intended for "key 
personnel." See generally, H.R. REP. NO. 91-85 1, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750. The term "key personnel" 
denotes a position within the petitioning company that is "of crucial importance." Webster's 11 New College 
Dictionary 605 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 2001). In general, all employees can reasonably be considered 
"important" to a petitioner's enterprise. If an employee did not contribute to the overall economic success of 
an enterprise, there would be no rational economic reason to employ that person. An employee of "crucial 
importance" or "key personnel" must rise above the level of the petitioner's average employee. Accordingly, 
I Although the cited precedents pre-date the current statutory definition of "specialized knowledge," the 
AAO finds them instructive. Other than deleting the former requirement that specialized knowledge had 
to be "proprietary," the 1990 Act did not significantly alter the definition of "specialized knowledge" 
from the prior INS interpretation of the term. The 1990 Committee Report does not reject, criticize, or 
even refer to any specific INS regulation or precedent decision interpreting the term. The Committee 
Report simply states that the Committee was recommending a statutory definition because of "[vlarying 
[i.e. not specifically incorrect] interpretations by INS," H.R. Rep. No. 101-723(I), at 69, 1990 
U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6749. Beyond that, the Committee Report simply restates the tautology that became 
section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Id. The AAO concludes, therefore, that the cited cases remain useful 
guidance concerning the intended scope of the "specialized knowledge" L-1B classification. The AAO 
supports its use of Matter of Penner, as well in offering guidance interpreting "specialized knowledge." 
Again, the Committee Report does not reject the interpretation of specialized knowledge offered in 
Matter of Penner. 
SRC 05 1 16 50396 
Page 11 
based on the definition of "specialized knowledge" and the Congressional record related to that term, the 
AAO must make comparisons not only between the claimed specialized knowledge employee and the 
general labor market, but also between the employee and the remainder of the petitioner's workforce. While 
it may be correct to say that the beneficiary in the instant case is a highly slulled and productive employee, 
ths fact alone is not enough to bring the beneficiary to the level of "key personnel." 
Moreover, in Matter of Penner, the Commissioner discussed the legislative intent behind the creation of the 
specialized knowledge category. 18 I&N Dec. 49 (Comm. 1982). The decision noted that the 1970 House 
Report, H.R. No. 91 -85 1, stated that the number of admissions under the L-1 classification "will not be large" 
and that "[tlhe class of persons eligble for such nonimmigrant visas is narrowly drawn and will be carefully 
regulated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service." Id. at 5 1. The decision further noted that the House 
Report was silent on the subject of specialized knowledge, but that during the course of the sub-committee 
hearings on the bill, the Chairman specifically questioned witnesses on the level of skill necessary to qualify 
under the proposed "L" category. In response to the Chairman's questions, various witnesses responded that 
they understood the legislation would allow "high-level people," "experts," individuals with "unique" slulls, 
and that it would not include "lower categories" of workers or "slulled craft workers." Matter of Penner, id. 
At 50 (citing H.R. Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. Cornm., Immigration Act of 1970: Hearings on H.R. 445, 9lSt 
Cong. 210,218,223,240,248 (November 12, 1969)). 
Reviewing the Congressional record, the Commissioner concluded in Matter of Penner that an expansive 
reading of the specialized knowledge provision, such that it would include shlled workers and technicians, is 
not warranted. The Commissioner emphasized that the specialized knowledge worker classification was not 
intended for "all employees with any level of specialized knowledge." Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 53. 
Or, as noted in Matter of Colley, "[mlost employees today are specialists and have been trained and given 
specialized knowledge. However, in view of the House Report, it can not be concluded that all employees 
with specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are eligible for classification as 
intracompany transferees." 18 I&N Dec. at 1 19. According to Matter of Penner, "[sluch a conclusion would 
permit extremely large numbers of persons to qualify for the 'L-1 ' visa" rather than the "key personnel" that 
Congress specifically intended. 18 I&N Dec. at 53; see also, 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. at 
15 (concluding that Congress did not intend for the specialized knowledge capacity to extend to all 
employees with specialized knowledge, but rather to "key personnel" and "executives.") 
Further, although counsel correctly states that the L-1B visa classification does not require a test of the U.S. 
labor market for available workers, the Puleo memo cited by counsel allows CIS to compare the beneficiary's 
knowledge to the general United States labor market and the petitioner's workforce in order to distinguish 
between specialized and general knowledge. The Associate Commissioner notes in the memorandum that 
"officers adjudicating petitions involving specialized knowledge must ensure that the knowledge possessed 
by the beneficiary is not general knowledge held commonly throughout the industry but that it is truly 
specialized." See Puleo memo, supra. A comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge to the knowledge 
possessed by others in the field is therefore necessary in order to determine the level of the beneficiary's slulls 
and knowledge and to ascertain whether the beneficiary's knowledge is advanced. In other words, absent an 
outside group to which to compare the beneficiary's knowledge, CIS would not be able to "ensure that the 
knowledge possessed by the beneficiary is truly specialized." Id. The analysis for specialized knowledge 
SRC 05 1 16 50396 
Page 12 
therefore requires a test of the knowledge possessed by the United States labor market, but does not consider 
whether workers are available in the United States to perform the beneficiary's job duties. 
The record does not distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge as more advanced than the knowledge possessed 
by other programmers and Java specialists. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has been 
trained in and has participated in developing proprietary methodologies for the petitioner. The beneficiary is 
claimed to have "advanced" knowledge of the company's business processes, procedures and methodologies, 
as well as "specialized knowledge" in the intricate software created by and utilized by the company. 
However, as the petitioner has failed to document any specific training other than the two-week course 
referenced above, or otherwise describe or document the purported knowledge, these claims are not 
persuasive. 
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide the requested information regarding the training acquired by 
similarly employed workers with the company, and the job titles and duties of other workers for whom 
the petitioner has filed L-lB petitions. Again, failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a 
material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). Without this 
information, the AAO has no basis to compare the beneficiary's knowledge to that of other workers 
within the company, and therefore it can not be concluded that his knowledge is "advanced." There is no 
indication that the beneficiary has any knowledge that exceeds that of any experienced programmer 
specializing in Java development, or that he has received special training in the company's methodologies 
or processes which would separate him from any other similarly employer worker with the foreign 
company. However, notwithstanding the lack of documentation, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that 
the beneficiary's knowledge is more than the knowledge held by a skilled worker. See Matter of Penner, 
18 I&N Dec. at 52. 
The AAO does not dispute that the petitioner's organization, like any insurance company, has its own internal 
information systems processes and methodologies. However, there is no evidence in the record to establish 
that the beneficiary's knowledge of these systems, processes, and methodologies is particularly advanced in 
comparison to his peers, that the processes themselves cannot be easily transferred to its U.S. employees or to 
professionals who have not previously worked with the organization, that the US.-based staff does not 
actually possess the same knowledge, or that the U.S. position offered actually requires someone with the 
claimed "advanced knowledge." The petitioner has simply submitted no documentary evidence in support of 
its assertions or counsel's assertions that the beneficiary's slulls and knowledge of the foreign entity's 
processes, procedures and methodologies would differentiate him from any other similarly employed Java 
specialist with the petitioner's group or within the industry. Simply going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Counsel's reliance on the Puleo and Ohata memoranda is misplaced. It is noted that the memoranda were 
intended solely as a guide for employees and will not supersede the plain language of the statute or 
regulations. Therefore, by itself, counsel's assertion that the beneficiary's qualifications are analogous to the 
examples outlined in the memoranda is insufficient to establish the beneficiary's qualification for 
classification as a specialized knowledge professional. While the factors discussed in the memorandum may 
be considered, the regulations specifically require that the beneficiary possess an "advanced level of 
SRC 05 116 50396 
Page 13 
knowledge" of the organization's processes and procedures, or a "special knowledge" of the petitioner's 
product, service, research, equipment, techniques or management. 
 8 C.F.R. 3 2 14.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
 As 
discussed above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's knowledge rises to the level of 
specialized knowledge contemplated by the regulations. 
In sum, the beneficiary's duties and technical slulls, while impressive, demonstrate knowledge that is 
common among computer systems professional worlung in the beneficiary's specialty in the information 
technology field. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's training, work experience, or 
knowledge of the company's processes is more advanced than the knowledge possessed by others employed 
by the petitioner, or that the processes and systems used by the petitioner are substantially different from 
those used by other large insurance companies. The AAO does not dispute the fact that the beneficiary's 
knowledge has allowed him to successfully perform his job duties for the foreign entity. However, the 
successful completion of one's job duties does not distinguish the beneficiary as possessing special or 
advanced knowledge or as a "key personnel," nor does it establish employment in a specialized knowledge 
capacity. As discussed, the petitioner has not submitted probative evidence to establish that the beneficiary's 
knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished by some unusual quality and not generally known in 
the beneficiary's field of endeavor, or that his knowledge is advanced compared to the knowledge held by 
other similarly employed workers within the petitioner and the foreign entity. 
The legislative history of the term "specialized knowledge" provides ample support for a restrictive 
interpretation of the term. In the present matter, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
should be considered a member of the "narrowly drawn" class of individuals possessing specialized 
knowledge. See 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, supra at 16. Based on the evidence presented, it is concluded 
that the beneficiary has not been employed abroad and would not be employed in the United States in a 
capacity involving specialized knowledge. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.