dismissed L-1B Case: Software Services

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Are., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
%. 
;cik d"-,2 &-$,' - 3 .::- * , <.9\:-;;T- '"'#:'" " % U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
I 
FILE: EAC 03 165 52844 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
I 
IN RE: 
c PETITION: Petltion for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(] 5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationahty Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(l5)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Admin~strative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the o,fice that originally decided your case. Any hrther inquiry must be made to that office. 
EAC 03 165 52844 
Page 2 
DISCIJSSION: The nonimmigrant visa pehtion was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
According to the documentary evidence contained in the record, the petitioner was established in' 1965 and 
clai,bs to be a software sefvices company. It claims to bc the parent company with.a branch office, 
, located in Noida, India. It seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as an 
assistant manager-projects for two years. The director determined that the petitioner had failed to submit 
suffjcient evidence to establish that the beneficiary possessed specialized knowledge and had been employed 
by the foreign entity in a position requiring specialized knowledge. The director also detcmined that the 
posjtion being offered by the U.S. entity did not require the services of an individual possessing specialized 
kndFledge. 
I 
On kppeal, the petitioner disagrees with the director's decision and asserts that the evidence submitted was 
sufficient to demonstrate that the beneficiary qualifies in the specialized knowledge category. 
I 
To Lstabhsh L-1 eligbility under section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U!S.C. 4 1 101(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, withln three years preceding 
the benefic~ary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
Y managenal or executive capacity, or In a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualify~ng organization, and seeks to enter the United States temporarily In order to continue to render 
hls or her servlces to the same employer, or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof, m a capacity that is managenal, 
execut~ve, or involves speclahzed knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(l)(ii) states, in part: 
hzlmcompany transferee means an alien who, within three years preceding the hme of hls or her 
application for adrnisslon Into the United States, has been employed abroad continuously for one 
year by a firm or corporation or other legal entlty or parent, branch, affthate, or subs~d~ary 
thereof, and who seeks to enter the United States temporanly m order to render h~s or her 
services to a branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof in a capacity 
that is rnanagenal, execuhve, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3) hrther states that an individual petttlon filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or w~ll employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined m paragraph (1)(1)(11)(G) of thls 
sectlon. 
(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 thc alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding \he filing of 
the petition. 
EAC 03 165 52844 ' 
Page 3 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managenal, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the allen's prior 
' 
education, training, and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended 
se&ces in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
samk work which the alien performed abroad. 
The issue In this proceeding is whether the petitioner has established that the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge, has been employed by the foreign entity in a specialized knowledge capacity, and will be 
employed by the u.s.; entity in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
Sectlon 214(c)(2)(B) bf the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 11 84(c)(2)(B), provldes the following: 
I 
For purposes:of section IOl(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered to be serving ~n a capac~ty 
involving speclal~zed knowledge w~th 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 214,2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines "specialized knowledge" as: 
[Slpeclal knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization's product, 
service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other Interests and ~ts application In 
International markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the organization's 
processes and procedures. 
The petitioner stated in the petition that the beneficiary's past duties while employed by the foreign entity 
included "software deiign, analysis, coding, testing, installation and maintenance of software applications to 
meet client requirements using -offshore/onsite business model .with Keine"s Knowledge Acquisition 
Process and Keane's Application Management and Productivity Management methodologies insuring CMM 
quality standards were: met." 
The petitioner stated i,n a letter of support, dated May 6, 2003, that the beneficiary had been employed by 
Metamor Global Solut!ons and its successor (the foreign entity) since May of 2000. The petitioner described 
the beneficiary's position as that of assistant manager-project. The petitioner stated that 'the beneficia~ 
possessed a Bachelor': degree in Science and an Advanced Diploma in Systems Management, and that he had. 
over six years of work experience and on-the-job training using 'Knowledge Acquisition Process 
(KAP) withApplication ~anagkment and Productivity Management~rii~thodo10g1es.~~ 'fie petitioner 
also stated that the beneficiary acquired experience with onsite-offshore business model by working 
on client projects. The,petitioner described the beneficiary's duties at the foreign entity as: 
Review~ng design documents and collaborating diagrams, coding according to standards for 
each project, pieparing user test plans, sample data testing and functionality testmg, prepared 
unit testlng revlew reports, and coordinating wlth the onslte and offshore team members. 
Review of design documents and collaborate diagrams, prcparatlon of Use Cases. Data 
D~ctionary and'screen shots, prepanng thc Unit test Plans, preparing Trace Ability Matrix for 
EAC 03 165 52844 
Page 4 
Use Cases and Unit Test Plan, sample Data Testing and Functionality Testmg, preparing 
Review Defect Forms, and coordinating with the Onsite/Offshore team members regar$dng 
daily issue logs and closing of issues. 
.... 
Analysis and designing of the Power Builder Scanner Module, creation of dengn documents 
and the logical flow of database on Erwin, creation of Use Cases, Collaboration Diagrams 
and Sequential Diagrams for the Power Builder Scanner Project on Rational Rose 2000, 
maintaming Database, Generation of Scripts, Created Tables, Stored Procedures, and 
Triggers, and developing and delivering Quality Software with in [sic] the stipulating [SIC] 
tlme and consistent with the project requirements laid down and coordrnated with the Team 
Members and the Onsite team. 
.Proper distribution of work based on the availability of resources and number of,problem 
tickets on hand and assigned priority tickets to senior team members and providing 
knowledge and technical support to [sic] team member. As the communicator with the 
onshore/offshore clients, he analysis of all problem tickets logged on to work database, 
estimated work for Modifications and Enhancements requested by the onsite team, prepared 
the preliminary analysis document for coding enhancements to form the base for final 
estimate. He also was responsible for weekly meeting with on-site coordinators and 
interaction with other module coordinators at offshore.and on-site, kept track of the time lag 
between pffshorc and on-site team, plan clarifications and queries raised by the team and 
solve the queries with the on-site coordinator. Additional responsibilities included to locate 
bugs reported by the end-users and replicate bugs on test environment system, prepare 
analysis documents for the bugs, preparation of estimates within the schedule requested by 
the on-site coordinator and fixing of bugs, prepare test plan and test data for the review of 
bugs and moving codes into production environment from the test environment. 
Provides support to the users for the var~ous systems that are running under Internal 
Automation Projects, gives training and conducts induction programmers to new resources, 
joining the different projects, provides full support on the exitlng [sic] internal software. He 
is [sic] also analyzes all the requirements of the Finance Users, prepares the preliminary 
analysls documents for coding enhancements to form the base for final esttmates, and 
escalates problems on the exlsting system and highlighting the bugs and getting them done at 
the tech-centers. 
I'he petitioner stated that the beneficiary attended the in-house technical methodology training that is required 
of the foreign entity's employees. The petitioner also stated that the beneficiary had gained specialized 
knowledge through on-the-job experience of the company's proprietary methodologies working on client 
projects using~owledge Acquisition Process in conjunction with proprietary Application 
Management and Productivity Management methodologies to develop software applications. The petitioner 
claimed that the beneficiary had gained special technical knowledge of thc company's computer software 
production and its application in international markets through his in-house training. The petitioner also 
EAC 03 165 52844 
Page 5 
claiked that the beneficiary has acquired advanced knowledge of the company's unique processes and 
procedures through his work experience and trainmg. 
The petitioner submitted copies of: the beneficiary's resume, the beneficiary's Bachelor's Degree in Sclence 
and transcripts from the University of Madras, the beneficiary's Advanced Diploma in Systems Management 
issued by the National Inst~tute of Information Technology in January of 1996, an employment reference for 
the beneficiary from Synectics Consultants, the beneficiary's secondary school matriculation examinallon 
resu/ts from July of 1986, Knowledge Acquisition - Training details, - 
descr~ption of Application Management Methodology, and Keane's Guide to Project Management. The 
beneficiary described hls work experience in his resume as: 
I 
Having around 6 years and 4 months . . . in IT as o[fl March 2003, in the areas of sohvare 
design, analysis, coding, testing, installation, production support and maintenance using 
varied software including, Visual Basic, ASP, Unix, Informix, MS-SQL Server, Oracle 81, 
MS-Access, and FoxPro. 
I 
I have worked extensively in onsite-offshore model on 4 projects and the main responsibility 
includes leading modules in the projects. The other role includes, solving critical problem 
tickets, understanding client requirements, conducting team meetings with client, extensive 
client mnteract~on, [and] planmng and trainings. 
I 
Recently, I was re-tooled and was in Production Support on Informix/Unix for 11 months and 
had worked earlier in VB/ASP/SQL-Server projects on three-tter Architecture with 
COM/DCOM and MTS. I can get accustomed easily with in a short span of tlme in Power 
I 
Builder, Java Script and C and familiar with them. 
In a request for evidence, dated May 13,2003, the director stated in part: 
Please explain how the beneficiary's specialized knowledge of proprietary 
development procedures, methodologies, and tools is different from every other assistant 
project managers that you employ. 
Will the beneficiary be assigned to a project he has been working on abroad? If so, what 
specialized knowledge did he acqulre through work on the project? 
Submt evidence showing that the beneficiary's knowledgc is uncommon, noteworthy, or 
distinguished by some unusual quality and not generally known by practitioners In the 
beneficiary's field of endcavor, or that lusher advanced level of knowledgc of the processes 
and procedures of the company distinguish hm/her from those with only elementary or bas~c 
knowledge. 
Please submit evidence that the knowledge possessed by the beneliciary is not general 
knowledge held commonly throughout the industry but that is truly special or advanced. 
EAC 03 165 52844 
Page G 
Please submit a statement discussing the type of training (both formal educat~on and in-house 
training) needed for an individual to be able to adequately perform the duties of the proposed 
posit~on. 
The director also requested that the petitioner submit evidence to show that the beneficiary: 
h 
Possesses knowledge that is valuable to the employer's competitiveness in the market 
place. 
Is qualified to contribute to the United States employer's knowledge of fore~gn 
operating conditions as a result of special knowledge not generally found in the 
mdustry. 
Has been utilized abroad in a capacity involving significant assignments which have 
. enhanced the employer's productivity, competitiveness, Image, or financial position. 
Y Possesses knowledge, which normally can be gained only through prior experience with 
that employer. 
Possesses knowledge of a product or process that cannot be easily transferred or taught 
I to another individual. 
The director requested that the petrtioner Identify the manner in whlch the beneficmy gamed his specialized 
knowledge. ~ncludtng the total length of any classroom or on-the-job training courses and the m~nimum 
amount of time required to tram a person to be able to work m the proposed position. 
In a iesponse letter, dated June 17,2003, the pet~tioner stated that the beneficiary had been the project/rnodule 
leader for threc internal projects that involved enhancements to the company's project costing system. The 
petitioner also stated that the beneficiary was responsible for: "allocat~on of work to team members, training 
te? members, reviewing work of team members done on test plans, test data, processes and codmg." The 
petityoner stated that the beneficiary used ~nowled~e Acqwsition Process (KAP) to perform the 
required analysis for the projects that he worked on. The pehtioner also stated: "Once the system 
requirements were gathered, [the beneficiary] used productiv~ty management methodology in 
conjunction wlth proprietary application management methodology's application development 
framework process to define the project and set up standards that met SEI's Capability Matunty Model Level 
5 quality requtrements." 
The petitioner claimed that the beneficiary gained his experience of the organization's productivity and 
application management methodologtes wh~le using the company's offshoretonsite business model while 
working with teams on the The petitloner also 
claimed that the foreign ent!ty employed 900 employees of wh~ch 250 of them have been ldentlfied as senlor 
level employees capable of managmg client projects uslng the KAP method in conjunction wth the 
productivity and appllcat~on management methodolog~cs. The petitioner further claimed that 12 to 18 months 
working on client projects is required to attain the skills and knowledge necessary to become a project team 
leader. 
The $etitioner stated that in order to meet client requirements, 'the petitioner needcd to have senior level 
employees who have managed client projects abroad using the KAP system to come to the United States to 
work ?with the onsite technical teams and the client during the initial requirements gathering and systems 
application construction and implementation phases. The petitioner concluded by stating that a combination 
of the' beneficiaryls in-house experience coupled with his training makes him eligible for L-1B status. The 
EAC 03 165 52844 
Page 7 
pct~tioner submitted as evidence copies of the company's definition of Productivity Management and a llst of 
6 principles, definition of Application Management Methodology, Application Management Framework's 
table of contents, Knowledge Acquisition process, a list of basic training courses, and information on the use 
of the Capabil~ty Maturity Model, which is incorporated Into the company's Application Management 
Methodology. 
The d~rector subsequently denied the petition stating that it did not appear from the record that the 
benefiaary, as project manager possessed speciahzed knowledge or that the pos~tlon requ~red someone with 
speclabzed knowledge. The dlrector noted that any programmer or systems analyst worlung for a consulting 
company would acqulre unique experiences and skills based upon the projects they were asstgned to. The 
d~rector also noted that each software consultancy company would develop ~ts own processes and procedures 
for conducting busmess and carrying out contracts. The director further noted that the descnbed factors were 
insufficient to qualify a position or person in the speciahzed knowledge classification. The d~rector stated that 
the trainlng offered by the foreign entity was not unlque and on average consisted of two to three day courses. 
The director also stated that the petitioning company was the same as other consultancy companies and that 
the services offered were also the same as that offered by other consultancy companies. 
Thedirector stated that although the petitioner repeatedly emphasized the uniqueness of the company's KAP 
system, there was nothmg in the evidence that detailed the specific training, if any, provided by the Indian 
company to its employees. The director also stated that although knowledge of the KAP system may be 
unique to the company, each programmer working for the company is more likely than not exposed to 
the &4P processes, and w&ld eventually become familiar with such processes in the normal course of 
performing their duties. 
The 'director stated that although the petitioner may alter and modify commercially available software for its 
own purposes as well as design programming tools, it does not design and sell soilware products. The 
director noted that the beneficiary did not work on a team that designs software, but rather simply uses what is 
made available to him and thereafter customizes and installs a finished product. The director concluded by 
stating that while the evidence demonstrated that the beneficiary had been employed by the foreign entity for 
three years as a qualified programmer and project leader, there was nothing in the record to establish that he 
possessed specialized knowledge, or that any other qualified programmer from outside, the petitioning 
company could not quickly learn the practices, policies, processes, procedures, and tools of the - 
companies. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary has extenswe training in the forelgn entity's Quahty 
Management System processes and procedures and has used the proprietary in-house development tools tn 
Fonjunctlon w~th the standards for quality control to develop and implement system appllcations for clients. 
Counsel contends that the beneficiary has received 35 days of in-house trainlng that covered the foreign 
entity's processes and procedures used in developing, enhancmg, or ~mplementing apphcation systems for 
clients. Counsel claims the beneficiary has been a project manager and has trained staff to use the company's 
developed tools. Counscl further claims that the benefic~ary has experience in using the company's 
proprietary tools to bnng the appllcations up to the CMM Level 5 quality standards, and also has the ability to 
develop and lmplernent applications that meet the CMM Level 3 quality standards. Counsel also claims that 
the beneficiary is belng transferred to the United States to insure that the systems applications developed by 
the U.S. techcal team 1s effectively transmittable to hd~a and to assure that the systems meet with CMM 
Level 5 quality standards. The pehtloner notes that there u no formal classroom tralnlng for KAP 
process, but that the benefic~ary gained his experience as a team leader who has worked on numerous chent