dismissed L-1B Case: Software Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clear!y ~nwarrmted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: SRC 04 100 50084 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 2 7 2010 
IN RE: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 1(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Perry Rhew 
' Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
director subsequently granted the petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider the matter, and affirmed her 
decision to deny the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition to employ the beneficiary in the United States as an L-1B 
intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act ("the Act"), 8 U.S.C. 8 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Georgia corporation, is engaged in the 
design, development, support and operation of worldwide online lotteries. It claims to be a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of located in Athens, Greece. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the 
position of software engineer for a period of two years. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge or that he has been or would be employed in a position requiring specialized 
knowledge. The director subsequently affirmed this decision on motion. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director's decision ignores the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of "specialized knowledge" and is inconsistent with numerous precedent decisions. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must demonstrate that the 
beneficiary, within 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. The petitioner must also demonstrate that the 
beneficiary seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render 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. § 214.2(1)(3) further 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. 
(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 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 3 
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. 
Under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, an alien is eligible for classification as a nonimmigrant if the alien, 
among other things, will be rendering services to the petitioning employer "in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge." Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(c)(2)(B), 
provides the statutory definition of specialized knowledge: 
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. 5 2 14.2(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. 
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and that he has been and will be employed in a capacity requiring specialized 
knowledge. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker on February 20, 2004. The 
petitioner indicated on Form 1-129 that the beneficiary has been employed by its Greek parent company since 
September 2002. 
In a letter dated February 5, 2004, the petitioner stated that the U.S. company "offers lottery organizations a 
comprehensive and cost-effective turnkey product solution for integrating networks, terminal devices and 
software in one centrally controlled online communications network." The petitioner explains that it secures 
business through open bid procurement through a Request for Proposal process issued by each state in the 
United States. In July 2003, the company was selected to serve as the "new on-line lottery gaming system 
and related services contractor for the Nebraska Lottery." 
The petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed duties in the position of software engineer as follows: 
[The beneficiary] will be responsible for the implementation, development and management 
of the LOTOSTM on-line gaming computer system and full-function terminals. The LOTOSTM 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 4 
on-line gaming computer system and full-function terminals is the proprietary software 
developed by [the petitioner] specifically for [company] projects. He will analyze software 
requirements to determine feasibility of design within time and cost constraints, consult with 
[the petitioner's] hardware engineers and other engineering staff to evaluate interface between 
hardware and software, and operational and performance requirements of overall system. He 
will formulate and design software systems, develop and direct software system testing 
procedures, programming, and documentation. Additionally, he will consult with [the 
petitioner's] customers concerning maintenance of software, particularly users of the 
Nebraska Lottery project. 
The petitioner stated that the beneficiary has been employed as a Technical Project Manager - Systems 
Architect with the petitioner's parent company since September 2002. The petitioner stated that he is currently 
"responsible for implementing, developing and managing the LOTOSTM on-line gaming computer system and 
full-function terminals." The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary holds a masters degree in telematics, a 
diploma in information engineering, and has five years of experience in computer programming and network 
administration. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary has "extensive experience in the development and 
implementation of computer software and will be able to provide the specialized computer software design 
expertise" that the U.S. office requires. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's resume in support of the petition. He indicates that he has 
served as a technical project manager - system architect with the foreign entity since September 2002, 
"responsible for the analysis, design and implementation of LOTOSTM modules for the Nebraska project." 
The beneficiary's resume also lists his technical skills, which include: .NET languages (C#, VB.NET, 
Managed C++), Visual Basic 6.0, Visual C++, Java, J2EE, ASP.NET, ASP, VBScript, Jscript, Delphi, C, 
C++, Oracle database, SQL Server, MySQL, and UML notation. 
The director issued a request for additional evidence (WE) on March 1, 2004. The director advised the 
petitioner that it must provide additional evidence to establish 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 advised that the evidence must also establish that the beneficiary's knowledge of the processes 
and procedures of the petitioning company is apart from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by 
others. 
The director instructed the petitioner to explain what makes the beneficiary's knowledge different from that 
possessed by others who possess similar experience in the industry, to discuss the beneficiary's contribution to 
the petitioner's proprietary systems or products, and to indicate how many other employees have the same 
knowledge as the beneficiary with respect to the petitioner's products. The director noted that having 
knowledge of the petitioner's products and services alone is not sufficient to be considered "specialized 
knowledge," but rather the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is above and beyond that 
possessed by others in the company and in the industry as a whole. Finally, the director requested that the 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 5 
petitioner explain what type of training and/or processes are involved in preparing an individual for the 
position offered. 
In a response dated May 17, 2004, counsel for the petitioner explained that the petitioner's operating system, 
LOTOSTM, is unique to the petitioning group and "not available, known or accessible to any other lottery 
company in the industry." Counsel stated that LOTOSTM was initially developed by an affiliate of the foreign 
entity, Intrasoft S.A., which is currently owned by the foreign entity. Counsel further stated: 
[The foreign entity] is the sole owner of the LOTOSTM operating system, holding multiple 
patents on its design and applications, and is the proprietary operating system designed solely 
for use in [the petitioner's] lottery software applications. The integrated lottery systems 
developed by [the petitioning group] rank among the most advanced and flexible systems 
available worldwide. The innovative LOTOSTM software application platform, designed and 
fully developed by the company utilizing state-of-the-art methodologies and tools, constitutes 
the core element of [the petitioner's] lottery systems. 
To protect the confidentiality and proprietary nature of LOTOSTM, [the foreign entity] is very 
strict about who is able to learn and become users of the LOTOSTM system. [The foreign 
entity] strictly allows only its computer programmers, software and electrical engineers to 
implement the LOTOSTM system on [the petitioner's] lottery operations throughout the world. 
These [company] employees are bound by comprehensive confidentiality agreements with 
[the foreign entity]. 
Counsel further stated that "only those individuals identified by [the foreign entity] as sufficiently competent 
professional computer programming, software or electrical engineers, and who are then subsequently trained 
by [the foreign entity's] engineering staff, are entrusted with the work of knowing, understanding, 
implementing, revising, or modifying LOTOSTM operating systems for [the foreign entity] and its 
subsidiaries." Counsel emphasized that specialized knowledge of the operating system is not readily available 
in the United States workforce. 
With respect to the beneficiary's qualifications and the purpose of his transfer to the United States, counsel 
stated: 
[The beneficiary] began his employment with [the foreign entity] in September of 2002 in the 
position of Technical Project Manager - System Architect. In addition to the specialized 
knowledge [the beneficiary] has gained with [the foreign entity], the beneficiary holds a 
Master's degree in Telematics from the University of Sheffield. Telematics is the emerging 
study of computers and wireless telecommunications technologies with the goal of efficiently 
conveying information over vast networks to improve a host of business functions or 
government-related public services. Telematics is not readily offered yet in most U.S. 
colleges and universities. In addition, he holds a Diploma in Information Engineering from 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 6 
the School of Technological Information of Athens. [The beneficiary's] unique training in 
telematics and information engineering coupled with his in-depth understanding of the 
relationship between the LOTOSTM operating system and the management of multiple and 
complex databases associated with lottery operations provide a unique expertise that can only 
be replicated by very few professionals who possess similar academic studies and training, 
combined with LOTOSTM experience. [The beneficiary] is one of only two [foreign entity] 
personnel with the combination of telematics training and experience of the LOTOSTM 
operating system. This set of specialized knowledge is crucial to implement the [petitioner's] 
lottery installation and maintain operations in the United States. 
Counsel stated that the beneficiary "holds specialized knowledge of the LOTOSTM proprietary operating 
system and is essential to the successful operation and expansion of [the U.S. company]." 
The petitioner's response to the RFE included, among other documents, evidence of the petitioning group's 
corporate structure; an annual report for the petitioner's parent company; website documentation regarding the 
LOTOSTM operating system; and a press release dated December 15, 2003 announcing the contract between 
the petitioner and the Nebraska Lottery. 
The director denied the petition on June 1, 2004, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been or would be employed in a capacity requiring 
specialized knowledge. In denying the petition, the director observed that the beneficiary's duties do not 
appear to be significantly different from those of any other software engineers in the petitioner's firm, or from 
those of software engineers in the petitioner's industry at large. The director acknowledged the petitioner's 
statements that the position requires an individual with in-depth knowledge of the petitioner's proprietary 
LOTOSTM operating system, but found that the petitioner failed to establish that understanding of this system 
is indicative of specialized or advanced knowledge within the company. The director emphasized that "no 
evidence was submitted to establish 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 
concluded by finding that the petitioner failed to furnish evidence sufficient to establish that the beneficiary's 
duties involve specialized knowledge or expertise that make him key personnel for the petitioning 
corporation. 
The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen and reconsider the denial of the petition on June 28, 
2004. On motion, the petitioner submitted a letter dated June 16, 2004 from State Tax 
Commissioner of the State of Nebraska. referenced the contract between the petitioner and the 
Nebraska Lottery, and stated: 
The integral operating system for the [petitioner's] online gaming system, LOTOSTM, is a 
proprietary software program, designed and wholly-owned by [the foreign entity]. Intrinsic to 
the terms of Nebraska's contract with [the petitioner], is the ongoing technical support 
provided by [the foreign entity's] personnel. Comparable technical knowledge and expertise 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 7 
is not available in the U.S. workforce. Consequently, we consider it essential that [the foreign 
entity's] personnel be readily afforded appropriate visa status to permit travel to and from [the 
petitioner's] U.S. Lottery contract sites, and, in particular, its Nebraska site. 
Counsel asserted that this statement, considered along with evidence previously submitted, supports the 
petitioner's assertions and serves as ample evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, 
noteworthy and not generally known by practitioners in the field. 
Counsel further stated: 
Both the petitioner and the State of Nebraska, which have vested interests in completing a 
multi-million dollar lottery project, have clearly stated that the knowledge [the beneficiary] 
possesses is not common throughout the industry. In fact, such knowledge of the LOTOSTM 
operating system is not common within the company itself. As set forth previously, [the 
beneficiary] is one of only two [foreign entity] personnel with the combination of telematics 
training and experience of the LOTOSTM operating system. 
The Service's own regulations define "specialized knowledge" as "knowledge possessed by 
an individual of the petitioning organization's product.. .and its application in international 
markets." The present petition almost reads like a case hypothetical for the Service's 
definition of specialized knowledge. The beneficiary, in addition to having attained a 
professional level degree, has been specifically trained by the petitioner's parent company in 
the use and implementation of a proprietary software. There are no U.S. workers readily 
available with a similar set of skills. The petitioner submits that the instant case presents a 
fact pattern that Congress envisioned when it enacted Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act. 
On August 2, 2004, the director dismissed the petitioner's motion and affirmed the denial of the petition. The 
director emphasized that the petitioner had failed to submit any documentary evidence to differentiate the 
beneficiary's knowledge from that of others in the industry, and no evidence to support a finding that the 
beneficiary, as a software engineer, is considered key personnel within the organization. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director's decision ignores the statutory and regulatory 
definitions of specialized knowledge and "numerous precedent decisions." Counsel requests that the AAO 
review the entirety of the record, including the brief and evidence submitted on motion. 
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has 
specialized knowledge or that he will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity as defined at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 2 14.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 8 
Standard for Specialized Knowledge 
Looking to the language of the statutory definition, Congress has provided USCIS with an ambiguous definition 
of specialized knowledge. In this regard, one Federal district court explained the infeasibility of applying a 
bright-line test to define what constitutes specialized knowledge: 
This ambiguity is not merely the result of an unfortunate choice of dictionaries. It reflects the 
relativistic nature of the concept special. An item is special only in the sense that it is not 
ordinary; to define special one must first define what is ordinary. . . . There is no logical or 
principled way to determine which baseline of ordinary knowledge is a more appropriate reading 
of the statute, and there are countless other baselines which are equally plausible. Simply put, 
specialized knowledge is a relative and empty idea which cannot have a plain meaning. CJ: 
Westen, The Empty Idea of Equality, 95 Harv.L.Rev. 537 (1 982). 
1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F.Supp. 9, 14-15 (D.D.C., 1990).' 
While Congress did not provide explicit guidance for what should be considered ordinary knowledge, the 
principles of statutory interpretation provide some clue as to the intended scope of the L-1B specialized 
knowledge category. NLRB v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23, 484 U.S. 1 12, 123 (1 987) 
(citing INSv. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 107 S.Ct. 1207,94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987)). 
First, the AAO must look to the language of section 214(c)(2)(B) itself, that is, the terms "special" and 
"advanced." Like the courts, the AAO customarily turns to dictionaries for help in determining whether a word in 
a statute has a plain or common meaning. See, e.g., In re A.H. Robins Co., 109 F.3d 965, 967-68 (4th Cir. 1997) 
(using Webster's Dictionary for "therefore"). According to Webster's New College Dictionary, the word "special" 
is commonly found to mean "surpassing the usual" or "exceptional." Webster's New College Dictionary, 1084 
(3rd Ed. 2008). The dictionary defines the word "advanced" as "highly developed or complex" or "at a higher 
level than others." Id. at 17. 
Second, looking at the term's placement within the text of section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act, the AAO notes that 
specialized knowledge is used to describe the nature of a person's employment and that the term is listed among 
the higher levels of the employment hierarchy together with "managerial" and "executive" employees. Based on 
the context of the term within the statute, the AAO therefore would expect a specialized knowledge employee to 
occupy an elevated position within a company that rises above that of an ordinary or average employee. See 
1 756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. at 14. 
1 
Although 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General was decided prior to enactment of the statutory definition of 
specialized knowledge by the Immigration Act of 1990, the court's discussion of the ambiguity in the legacy 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) definition is equally illuminating when applied to the definition 
created by Congress. 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 9 
Third, a review of the legislative history for both the original 1970 statute and the subsequent 1990 statute 
indicates that Congress intended for USCIS to closely administer the L-1B category. Specifically, the original 
drafters of section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act intended that the class of persons eligible for the L-1 classification 
would be "narrowly drawn" and "carefully regulated and monitored" by USCIS. See generally H.R. Rep. No. 91- 
851 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750,2754, 1970 WL 5815. The legislative history of the 1970 Act 
plainly states that "the number of temporary admissions under the proposed 'L' category will not be large." Id In 
addition, the Congressional record specifically states that the L-1 category was intended for "key personnel." 
See generally, id. The term "key personnel" denotes a position within the petitioning company that is "[olf 
crucial importance." Webster 's New College Dictionary 620 (31d ed., Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing 
Co. 2008). Moreover, 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" skills, and that it would not include "lower 
categories" of workers or "skilled craft workers." See H.R. Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. Comm., Immigration 
Act of 1970: Hearings on H.R. 445,91" Cong. 210,218,223,240,248 (Nov. 12, 1969). 
Neither in 1970 nor in 1990 did Congress provide a controlling, unambiguous definition of "specialized 
knowledge," and a narrow interpretation is consistent with so much of the legislative intent as it is possible to 
determine. H. Rep. No. 91-851 at 6, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2754. This interpretation is consistent with legislative 
history, which has been largely supportive of a narrow reading of the definition of specialized knowledge and the 
L-1 visa classification in general. See 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F.Supp. at 15-16; Boi Na Brma 
Atlanta, LLC v. Upchwch, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 2372846 at *4 (N.D.Tex., 2005), afd 194 
Fed.Appx. 248 (5th Cir. 2006); Fibermaster, Ltd v. I.N.S., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1990 WL 99327 (D.D.C., 
1990); Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Action 00-2977-LFO (D.D.C. April 6, 2001)(on file with 
AAO). 
Further, although the Immigration Act of 1990 provided a statutory definition of the term "specialized 
knowledge" in section 214(c)(2) of the Act, the definition did not generally expand the class of persons eligible 
for L-1B specialized knowledge visas. Pub.L. No. 101-649, 9 206(b)(2), 104 Stat. 4978, 5023 (1990). Instead, 
the legislative history indicates that Congress created the statutory definition of specialized knowledge for the 
express purpose of clarifying a previously undefined term from the Immigration Act of 1970. H.R. Rep. 101- 
723(I) (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6749, 1990 WL 200418 ("One area within the L visa that 
requires more specificity relates to the term 'specialized knowledge.' Varying interpretations by INS have 
exacerbated the problem."). While the 1990 Act declined to codify the "proprietary knowledge" and "United 
States labor market" references that had existed in the previous agency definition found at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) (1988), there is no indication that Congress intended to liberalize its own 1970 definition of 
the L-1 visa classification. 
If any conclusion can be drawn from the enactment of the statutory definition of specialized knowledge in section 
2 14(c)(2)(B), it would be based on the nature of the Congressional clarification itself. By not including any strict 
criterion in the ultimate statutory definition and further emphasizing the relativistic aspect of "special knowledge," 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 10 
Congress created a standard that requires USCIS to make a factual determination that can only be determined on a 
case-by-case basis, based on the agency's expertise and discretion. Rather than a bright-line standard that would 
support a more rigid application of the law, Congress gave the INS a more flexible standard that requires an 
adjudication based on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. CJ: Ponce-Leiva v. Ashcroft, 33 1 F.3d 
369, 377 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89,91 (9th Cir. 1988)). 
To determine what is special or advanced, USCIS must first determine the baseline of ordinary. As a 
baseline, the terms "special" or "advanced" must mean more than simply "skilled" or "experienced." By 
itself, work experience and knowledge of a firm's technically complex products will not equal "special 
knowledge." See Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. 49, 53 (Comm. 1982). 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. In other words, specialized knowledge generally requires more than a short period of experience; 
otherwise special or advanced knowledge would include every employee in an organization with the 
exception of trainees and entry-level staff. If everyone in an organization is specialized, then no one can be 
considered truly specialized. Such an interpretation strips the statutory language of any efficacy and cannot 
have been what Congress intended. 
Considering the definition of specialized knowledge, it is the petitioner's, not USCIS's, burden to articulate 
and prove that the beneficiary possesses "special" or "advanced" knowledge. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1184(c)(2)(B). USCIS cannot make a factual determination regarding the beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of the claimed 
specialized knowledge, describe how such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain 
how and when the beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
Once the 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. A 
petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge of the processes and procedures of 
the company must be supported by evidence describing and distinguishing that knowledge from the 
elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. Because "special" and "advanced" are comparative 
terms, the petitioner should provide evidence that allows USCIS to assess the beneficiary's knowledge 
relative to others in the petitioner's workforce or relative to similarly employed workers in the petitioner's 
specific industry. 
Analysis 
In examining the specialized knowledge of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's description of 
the job duties and the weight of the evidence supporting any asserted specialized knowledge. See 8 C.F.R. 
fj 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a detailed job description of the services to be performed sufficient to 
establish specialized knowledge. Id. Merely asserting that the beneficiary possesses "special" or "advanced" 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 11 
knowledge will not suffice to meet the petitioner's burden of proof. 
Upon review, the petitioner in this case has failed to establish either that the beneficiary's position in the 
United States requires an employee with specialized knowledge or that the beneficiary has specialized 
knowledge. The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary has been and would be implementing, developing 
and managing the LOTOSTM online gaming computer system and full-function terminals, including duties 
related to software requirements analysis, testing, programming, documentation and maintenance of the 
software. At the time of filing, the petitioner simply stated that the LOTOSTM system is proprietary and that 
the beneficiary "has extensive experience in the development and implementation of software." Although the 
petitioner indicated that the beneficiary currently works as a technical project managerlsystem architect, the 
petitioner did not identify with specificity any previous projects on which the beneficiary has worked or any 
special or advanced duties he has performed, nor did the petitioner offer any information that might 
distinguish the LOTOSTM system from products offered by other on-line gaming system providers. The duties 
described might reasonably describe the general duties of any software engineer working in the petitioner's 
industry. 
Furthermore, although the petitioner provided a copy of the beneficiary's resume, the information contained 
therein sheds no additional light on what constitutes his specialized knowledge. The beneficiary listed a 
number of computer skills and technical proficiencies, none of which are specific to the petitioning 
organization. The beneficiary stated that he has been employed by the foreign entity for approximately 18 
months, engaged in the "analysis, design and implementation of LOTOSTM modules for the Nebraska 
project," but that is the extent of the information provided regarding his foreign employment. 
Accordingly, the director reasonably requested further evidence to establish that the beneficiary's knowledge 
is not generally known by practitioners in the field, and an explanation as to what distinguishes the petitioner's 
products from others that are similar in the industry. The director also requested that the petitioner explain the 
beneficiary's contribution to creating the LOTOSTM system and identify the number of employees who 
possess similar knowledge. 
Although the petitioner submitted a response to the RFE, the information provided was not detailed and failed 
to fully respond to the queries posed by the director. The petitioner did not, for example, explain how its 
product differs from those of its competitors, or explain whether or how the beneficiary contributed to the 
development of the product. 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). 
Instead, the petitioner reiterated that the LOTOSTM system is proprietary to the petitioner's group of 
companies, and that knowledge of such system is confined to the foreign entity's computer programmers, 
software and electrical engineers. In an attempt to distinguish the beneficiary from this pool of employees, the 
petitioner emphasized that the beneficiary's master's degree in the field of telematics is "unique" and that he is 
one of only two employees within the foreign entity who possess a combination of telematics training and 
experience with LOTOSTM. The petitioner did not explain, however, how the beneficiary has been or will be 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 12 
required to apply his telematics training to perform his duties with the petitioning company, how this training 
is relevant to the LOTOSTM product, or why this educational background is so crucial to the completion of the 
U.S. project. Clearly, the vast majority of the petitioner's engineering staff are able to perform their duties 
despite their lack of academic training in telematics; therefore, it is reasonable to expect the petitioner to 
differentiate the beneficiary's duties or role within the company from those technical employees who lack 
such education, or to explain how the petitioner's LOTOSTM product harnesses this knowledge. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Moreover, any knowledge the beneficiary obtained in 
conjunction with a master's degree program is not specific to the petitioning company and as such, the 
beneficiary's familiarity with the field of telematics cannot be considered "specialized knowledge" for the 
purposes of this visa classification. 
Therefore, the first question before the AAO is whether the beneficiary's knowledge of and experience with 
the petitioner's proprietary LOTOS system alone constitutes specialized knowledge. While the current 
statutory and regulatory definitions of "specialized knowledge" do not include a requirement that the 
beneficiary's knowledge be proprietary, the petitioner cannot satisfy the current standard merely by 
establishing that the beneficiary's purported specialized knowledge is proprietary. The knowledge must still 
be either "special" or "advanced." As discussed above, the elimination of the bright-line "proprietary" 
standard did not, in fact, significantly liberalize the standards for the L-1B visa classification. 
Reviewing the precedent decisions that preceded the Immigration Act of 1990, there are a number of 
conclusions that were not based on the superseded regulatory definition, and therefore continue to apply to the 
adjudication of L-1 B specialized knowledge petitions. In 198 1, the INS recognized that "[tlhe modern 
workplace requires a high proportion of technicians and specialists." The agency concluded that: 
Most employees today are specialists and have been trained and given specialized knowledge. 
However, in view of the [legislative history], it can not be concluded that all employees with 
specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are eligible for classification as 
intracompany transferees. The House Report indicates the employee must be a "key" person 
and associates this employee with "managerial personnel." 
Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. at 1 19-20. 
In a subsequent decision, the INS looked to the legislative history of the 1970 Act and concluded that a "broad 
definition which would include skilled workers and technicians was not discussed, thus the limited legislative 
history available therefore indicates that an expansive reading of the 'specialized knowledge' provision is not 
warranted." Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 5 1. The decision continued: 
[I]n view of the House Report, it cannot be concluded that all employees with any level of 
specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are eligible for classification as 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 13 
intra-company transferees. Such a conclusion would permit extremely large numbers of 
persons to qualify for the "L-1" visa. The House Report indicates that the employee must be 
a "key" person and "the numbers will not be large." 
Id. at 53. 
According to the reasoning of Matter of Penner, work experience and knowledge of a firm's technically 
complex products, by itself, will not equal "special knowledge." USCIS must interpret specialized knowledge 
to require more than fundamental job skills or a short period of experience. An expansive interpretation of 
specialized knowledge in which any experienced employee would qualify as having special or advanced 
knowledge would be untenable, since it would allow a petitioner to transfer any experienced employee to the 
United States in the L-1B classification. 
The proprietary specialized knowledge in this matter is stated to include LOTOSTM which is described on the 
petitioner's website as "an integrated, distributed information system, designed to support Wagering Games 
and Lottery Operations." As noted above, although requested by the director, the petitioner has opted not to 
provide any detailed technical information regarding its LOTOSTM product, nor has it offered any information 
as to how the product differs from similar products offered by other companies in the lottery and gaming 
industry. The petitioner indicates that its computer programmers, software and electrical engineers are 
"trained by [the foreign entity's] engineering staff' before they are entrusted with working with the product, 
and thus, no U.S. workers have the required knowledge of the system. However, the petitioner has not 
specified the amount or type of training its technical staff members receive in the LOTOSTM system and 
therefore it cannot be concluded that the technology is particularly complex or different compared to that 
utilized by other companies in the industry, or that it would take a significant amount of time to train an 
experienced software engineer who had no prior experience with the petitioner's family of companies. Again, 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
In addition, the record is devoid of evidence that the beneficiary himself completed any training during his 18 
months of employment with the foreign entity. Rather, it appears that the beneficiary's professional 
engineering degrees and five years of experience as a network administrator and programmer analyst with an 
unrelated company provided him with the knowledge needed to be hired as a technical project manager- 
system architect for the foreign entity. The petitioner does not articulate or document how specialized 
knowledge is typically gained within the organization, nor has it explained how and when the beneficiary 
gained such knowledge. 
The minimal documentary evidence on record suggests that the petitioner's LOTOSTM system, while highly 
successful and valuable to the petitioner, is based on industry standard technology that can be readily learned 
by employees who otherwise possess the requisite technical background in networking and software 
development. For this reason, the petitioner has not established that knowledge of its proprietary product 
alone constitutes specialized knowledge. 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 14 
In addition, even assuming arguendo that the beneficiary's familiarity with the LOTOSTM system alone could 
be considered "specialized knowledge," it is unclear how the beneficiary, who has been employed by the 
foreign entity for 18 months, is considered to have "advanced" knowledge of the petitioner's product. 
Although the AAO acknowledges that the beneficiary's job title is "technical project manager," the petitioner 
does not claim that the beneficiary has served in any key assignments overseas or contributed to the overall 
development of the product, nor has it otherwise attempted to distinguish his knowledge or experience from 
any other technical staff member working with the LOTOSTM system. As discussed above, the significance 
of the beneficiary's educational background in telematics has been inadequately explained and documented, 
and has not been shown to be knowledge that is specific to the petitioning organization. 
All employees can be said to possess some uncommon skill or experience to some degree. Moreover, the 
proprietary qualities of the petitioner's process or product do not establish that any knowledge of this process 
is "specialized." Rather, the petitioner must establish that qualities of the unique process or product require 
this employee to have knowledge beyond what is common in the industry. This has not been established in 
this matter. The fact that other workers may not have the same level of experience with one aspect of the 
petitioner's product is not enough to establish the beneficiary as an employee possessing specialized 
knowledge. 
It is appropriate for USCIS 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-making 
process. Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. at 120 (citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. at 618 and Matter of 
LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. at 816). 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, skills, or knowledge beyond that of a skilled 
worker. Id. 
The AAO acknowledges that the specialized knowledge need not be narrowly held within the organization in 
order to be considered "advanced." However, it is equally true to state that knowledge will not be considered 
"special" or "advanced" if it is universally or even widely held throughout a company. If all similarly 
employed workers within the petitioner's organization receive essentially the same training, then mere 
possession of knowledge of the petitioner's proprietary system or product does not rise to the level of 
specialized knowledge. The L-1B visa category was not created in order to allow the transfer of all 
employees with any degree of knowledge of a company's processes. If all employees are deemed to possess 
"special" or "advanced" knowledge, then that knowledge would necessarily be ordinary and commonplace. 
The petitioner has not successhlly demonstrated that the beneficiary's knowledge of the petitioner's products, 
processes and procedures gained during his 18 months of employment with the foreign entity is advanced 
compared to other similarly employed workers within the organization. While all employees can be said to 
possess distinct skill sets to some degree; however, a skill set that can be easily imparted to another similarly 
educated and generally experienced software engineer is not "specialized knowledge." The petitioner must 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 15 
establish that qualities of the petitioner's processes, procedures, and technologies require this employee to 
have knowledge beyond what is common in the industry. This has not been established in this matter. 
According to the reasoning of Matter of Penner, work experience and knowledge of a firm's technically complex 
products, by itself will not equal "special knowledge."2 An expansive interpretation of specialized knowledge in 
which any experienced employee would qualifjl as having special or advanced knowledge would be untenable, 
since it would allow a petitioner to transfer any experienced employee to the United States in L-1B classification. 
The term "special" or "advanced" must mean more than experienced or skilled. In other terms, specialized 
knowledge requires more than a short period of experience, otherwise, "special" or "advanced" knowledge would 
include every employee with the exception of trainees and recent recruits. 
The AAO does not dispute the possibility that the beneficiary is a skilled and experienced employee who has 
been, and would be, an asset to the petitioner. However, as explained above, the record does not distinguish 
the beneficiary's knowledge as more advanced than the knowledge possessed by other people employed by 
the petitioning organization or by workers employed elsewhere. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that 
the beneficiary's training, work experience, or knowledge of the company's products or processes is more 
advanced than the knowledge possessed by others employed by the petitioner, or that the petitioner's products 
are substantially different from those developed by other companies in the petitioner's industry. The petitioner 
has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is any more advanced or special than the 
knowledge held by a skilled worker. See Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 52. 
The legislative history for 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. The record does not establish that the 
beneficiary has specialized knowledge or that the position offered with the United States entity requires 
specialized knowledge. Accordingly, the petition will be denied. 
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. 9 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
2 As observed above, the AAO notes that the precedent decisions that predate the 1990 Act are not categorically 
superseded by the statutory definition of specialized knowledge, and the general issues and case facts themselves 
remain cogent as examples of how the INS applied the law to the real world facts of individual adjudications. 
USCIS must distinguish between skilled workers and specialized knowledge workers when making a 
determination on an L-1B visa petition. The distinction between skilled and specialized workers has been a 
recurring issue in the L-1B program and is discussed at length in the TNS precedent decisions, including Matter of 
Penner. See 18 I&N Dec. at 50-53. (discussing the legislative history and prior precedents as they relate to the 
distinction between skilled and specialized knowledge workers). 
SRC 04 100 50084 
Page 16 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.