dismissed L-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13472882 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB . 3, 2021 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-1B Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, a provider of product design, development , manufacturing , and market launch services, 
seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its "Senior Software Engineer" under the L-1B 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L) , 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(l5)(L). 
The California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish , as 
required , 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 . 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 conclude that the Petitioner did not 
meet that burden. Therefore , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1B nonimmigrant visa classification, 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. Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 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). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is part of a multinational organization that offers engineering , product design , and IT 
services to companies that work with "complex hardware-based systems" and operate within 
"complex manufacturing lifecycles." The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary possesses an 
"interdisciplinary skillset " which he has been using in his position as "Software Engineer" for its 
~ subsidiary, where he has worked since April 2017 , servicine;I I in Spain~ 
L__J, one of the company 's "most important clients in [the] printing business ." The Petitioner 
points to the Beneficiary's five years of experience in telecommunications engineering and embedded 
communications, stating that his master's degree in telecommunications engineering and industry 
experience led to his expertise in the petitioning organization'sLJprinting technology and the 
devices used to service that technology's I I systems." The Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary was "a key contributor" in bringingc=J, product to market and stresses the Beneficiary's 
leading role a "groundbreaking project" where the Beneficiary was required to use and service the 
Petitioner's proprietary 'I I" which were created fo0 The Petitioner 
claims that the Beneficiary has been using its "proprietary tools, resources, and methods" and 
possesses specialized knowledge of its .__ _______ _,and their servicing technologies. The 
Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary is an "expert" in the software development process as well 
as in "IFS," a tool used in the Petitioner's organization to manage procurement, engineering, supply 
chain, manufacturing, and project management activities, and that only someone who has worked in 
its organization and implemented its technologies in client projects can attain an understanding of how 
to use those technologies. 
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. 
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 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge ifhe or she has: (1) a "special" knowledge of 
the petitioning organization's product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" 
level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the petitioning organization. Section 
214(c)(2)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). A petitioner may establish eligibility by 
submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the 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 product or services and their 
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 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
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 such knowledge is 
typically gained within the organization and explain how and when the individual beneficiary gained 
such knowledge. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner did not initially state whether it was claiming that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is "special" or "advanced," but rather submitted a supporting cover letter stating that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is specialized because it is complex in matters of a highly technical nature, 
can only be gained through prior experience with the Petitioner's organization, is beneficial to the 
organization's competitiveness in the market, and cannot be easily transferred or taught. The 
Petitioner repeatedly stated that the Beneficiary has assumed the position of "software engineer" with 
the Spanish subsidiary and listed the Beneficiary's education and work experience, indicating that 
these elements played a role in the Beneficiary's acquisition of specialized knowledge. It also stated 
that the Beneficiary has "practical knowledge of cutting-edge printer technology" that may result in 
generating "up to $5 million" in research and development funds and "up to $7 million" in 
manufacturing profits. The Petitioner did not provide further information about the overall size of the 
research and development budget or the total profits generated from manufacturing. As such, we are 
unable to gauge the impact of these monetary projections on the organization. 
The Petitioner also did not clarify how the Beneficiary's "practical" knowledge of software and 
hardware supports the claim that his knowledge is specialized. Rather, it stressed thel I 
nature of thel I the Beneficiary used in theOproject and the servicing techniques, 
processes, and strategies associated with thos~, explaining that the I I 
use a differenQthan what was previously used in LJ and that the ultimate goal was to provide a 
large format printer for use in different textile printing markets. However, the Petitioner did not 
describe the servicing techniques, processes, or strategies that the Beneficiary used, nor did it explain 
why specialized knowledge was required to employ these elements in the D project. Further, 
although the Petitioner provided a list of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties, it did not establish that 
3 
performing those duties requires specialized knowledge that is somehow distinct from the knowledge 
of other software engineers in the industry of large format printer manufacturing. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted that the Petitioner did not identify the Beneficiary's 
knowledge as either "special" or "advanced," state how someone in the Petitioner's organization 
would gain the knowledge that is claimed to be specialized, or distinguish the Beneficiary's knowledge 
from that of others who are similarly employed within the employer or within the industry. The 
Director instructed the Petitioner to provide evidence addressing these evidentiary deficiencies. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a statement in which it referred to the Beneficiary's position 
abroad as that of "senior software engineer" and asserted that the duties associated with the "senior" 
position "are performed at a much higher level of specialization" as compared to "lower[- ]level 
[s]oftware [e]ngineers." The Petitioner did not acknowledge or resolve its inconsistent references to 
the Beneficiary's position title, first as "software engineer" and later adding the term "senior" to his 
job title when referring to the Beneficiary in an RFE response statement. The Petitioner must resolve 
this discrepancy in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92. 
The Petitioner also stated that as a result of working directly witO which it deemed one of its "most 
important clients," the Beneficiary received "exclusive training" and became an expert in its 
~------~ printing technology, enabling him to have access to "exclusive prototypes and other 
production units" that are not available to others within the organization. The Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary was responsible for servicing thel I which required him to develop 
software, create algorithmr, aid coordinate test definitions to maintain novel technology that combines 
~-------~and in large format printing. The Petitioner also pointed to an 18-month 
timeline during which the Beneficiary is claimed to have su orted trained and led research and 
development efforts to improve the servicing of the.__ ___ ..,-----, ____ __, stating that the 
Beneficiary used "proprietary tools, resources, and methods" o ro · ects and that specialized 
knowledge is required to develop and service the "extremely complex ~--~technology, which 
was developed forl I 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a trammg log itemizing over 900 hours of coursework the 
Beneficiary completed between June 2018 and January 2020, noting that this coursework was not 
offered to other software engineers in the organization. The log shows, however, that 784 hours were 
attributed to courses that were not taught by the Petitioner's in-house personnel and whose respective 
titles referencece=] the Petitioner's client, rather than the Petitioner itself. Although the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary's training was for the purpose of obtaining "specialized knowledge inl I I I" it did not explain how such training could have conveyed special knowledge of the 
Petitioner's products or services or advanced knowledge of its processes and procedures. The 
Petitioner also did not establish that the Beneficiary attained specialized knowledge and held a position 
requiring such knowledge for at least one year prior to February 2020, when this petition was filed. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). Although the training log shows that the Beneficiary's coursework 
spanned a 19-month period, the Petitioner did not specify precisely which course(s) resulted in 
knowledge that is claimed to be specialized or when the Beneficiary is claimed to have attained that 
level of knowledge. Further, although the Petitioner previously stressed that the Beneficiary's 
specialized knowledge pertains to its I I, only one course, which comprised 
4 
120 of the total 904 hours of coursework, pertained specifically to the subject ofl This 
evidence detracts from the claim that the Beneficiary's coursework contributed to and was part of the 
process that resulted in the specialized knowledge he is claimed to have attained with respect to the 
Petitioner's products or services or its processes and procedures. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again refers to the Beneficiary's foreign position as that of "senior software 
engineer" and attempts to distinguish his position as "highly special" as compared to "lower-level 
[s]oftware [e]ngineers." As previously noted, however, the reference to the Beneficiary's foreign 
position as that of a "senior" software engineer is not consistent with the initially submitted evidence, 
where the Beneficiary's position title was said to be one of "software engineer." The Petitioner has 
not resolved this discrepancy. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
The Petitioner also provides a statement claiming that "many years" of experience with~I --~ 
technology is required to gain the knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. However, the record 
lacks evidence showing that the Beneficiary had "many years" of experience in this field. Rather, it 
indicates that the Beneficiary acquired a master's degree in telecommunications engineering and had 
over five years of professional experience working in telecommunications engineering and embedded 
communications prior to assuming his position as software engineer for the foreign subsidiary. 
However, the Petitioner does not claim or demonstrate that the Beneficiary's education or prior work 
experience directly involved working wit~ !technology. Although the Petitioner points to the 
experience the Beneficiary gained working with this technology since getting hired by the foreign 
subsidiary in April 2018, the 22 months of employment he accumulated in his foreign position as of 
the date this petition was filed does not qualify as "many years" of experience. As noted earlier, 
although the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's training and work with the foreign subsidiary 
resulted in specialized knowledge, it does not specify the precise path or timeline for gaining such 
knowledge or describe how the Beneficiary's level of knowledge with regard to the foreign entity's 
products progressed from the time he was first hired to the time he attained the level of knowledge 
that the Petitioner claims is specialized. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner highlights the Beneficiary's work "with the technology directly at/with 
0' thereby indicating that the specialized knowledge claim is based primarily on the knowledge that 
the Beneficiary gained with regard to the client entity's products rather than the proprietary products 
of his foreign employer. Although the Petitioner provides a supplemental training log on appeal, this 
document further highlights that the coursework was not geared towards furthering the Beneficiary's 
knowledge of the foreign employer's products or that entity's processes and procedures, but rather 
that it pertained mainly to I I products and developing software to ensure optimal 
functionality of those products. Thus, despite claiming that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that 
is both "special" and "advanced" because it is proprietary and not widely held throughout the 
organization or the industry, the Petitioner's focus on its client's products detracts from this claim, as 
the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary's special or advanced knowledge pertains dire~ to 
the products or the processes and procedures of theJmpllying entity. In this instance, becauseLJ is 
not the employing entity, knowledge that pertains t products or~ processes and procedures 
cannot be deemed as specialized. 
Lastly, although the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is beneficial to 
the Petitioner's competitiveness in the marketplace, this characteristic alone is not probative of the 
5 
Beneficiary's specialized knowledge and is only factor in determining whether the Beneficiary 
possesses knowledge that is specialized. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-IB 
Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. It is ultimately 
"the weight and type of evidence that establishes whether the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge." Id. at 13. 
In light of the evidentiary deficiencies described herein, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he was employed abroad and would be employed 
in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal will be dismissed. 
6