dismissed L-1B Case: Software Solutions

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7040564 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC. 31, 2019 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
PETITION: Form I-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner is a software solutions company that seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as a 
"Senior Software Test Engineer" under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The 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. 
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 novo review, we find that the Petitioner did not meet 
that burden. Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB 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 101(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 an IT company that relies on former I !personnel who use ~I ----
software to provide IT solutions for complex business problems. The software business solutions are 
derived by using the Petitioner's I I proprietary software products, which the Petitioner 
trademarks and then licenses to end-users. The Beneficiary is described as a team lead over a group 
of software I professi
1
nals who enhance the end-client's systems by implementing the Petitioner's 
proprietary products. The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary bas "specialized and 
advanced knowledge of the end clients [sic] business" and states that the Beneficiary will train the 
Petitioner's employees to use and implement its products to provide software solutions for its client, 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will use its tools 
to carry out his duties and refers to the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge of 1 I systems." 
Although the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary acquired specialized knowledge during his 
employment with its Indian subsidiary, it refers to the foreign employer's testing schemes as "less 
critical" and "generic" in comparison to its own testing mechanisms and claims that the Beneficiary 
is a "scarce resource" with a "unique skill set" that is necessary to ensure that I Is software 
applications are tested in a "well-managed" environment. 
The Petitioner focuses on the Beneficiary's nine years of experience with financial applications and 
his role as lead architect on "selected I I products" and their implementation within the 
context of0s business needs. The Petitioner also points out that the Beneficiary has "technical 
knowledge of the entirety of the application from inception to implementation" and claims that the 
Beneficiary is the only person in the company with such comprehensive knowledge. It further claims 
that it would take at least one year to acquire the knowledge that the Beneficiary possesses. 
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 company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" level of 
knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 214( c )(2)(B) of the Act. A 
petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition. 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneficiary's 
knowledge is "special" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's 
knowledge against that of others. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge, the petitioner 
ordinarily must demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the 
particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. The ultimate question 
is whether the petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is special or advanced, and that the beneficiary's position 
requires such knowledge. 
Special knowledge concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its 
application in international markets. To establish that a beneficiary has special knowledge, the 
petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or 
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 repeatedly refers to the Beneficiary's "specialized and advanced knowledge" 
and provides a supporting statement and job offer letter indicating that the claimed specialized 
knowledge pertains to c=J's, i.e., the client's, business projects and policies. The supporting 
statement emphasizes the Beneficiary's "lead architect role on selected I I products" and 
provides a list of the Petitioner's proprietary software products that are used to service its client. 
However, it does not specify which products have been "selected" for the Beneficiary's use or establish 
that specialized knowledge is required to use these products. Likewise, the supporting statement 
includes the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown and points out that the Beneficiary was the lead 
architect in the development of several Smart products. However, it does not explain why specialized 
knowledge was required either to contribute to the development of these proprietary products or to 
perform the assigned job duties of a lead architect. Although the Petitioner repeatedly referred to the 
Beneficiary's knowledge as "specialized and advanced," it did not state how or when the Beneficiary 
gained such knowledge, nor did it specify the job duties that require such knowledge. 
Further, the Petitioner listed the names and provided copies of training guides that it claims the 
Beneficiary used to attain his advanced knowledge and claimed that the Beneficiary's proposed 
position with the U.S. entity will allow him to share his "advanced" knowledge of the client's business 
processes and policies. To the extent that the Petitioner did not identify any of its own processes and 
procedures, it has not properly set forth a claim that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge, which 
necessarily involves knowledge of the petitioning organization's, rather than a client's, processes and 
procedures. Moreover, by stating that the foreign entity's development environment is "less critical" 
and involves "generic testing schemes" in comparison to the U.S. entity, the Petitioner further 
undermines the claim that the Beneficiary gained specialized knowledge during his employment with 
the foreign entity. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of patents and 
user guides regarding company products, but found that the Petitioner did not show how knowledge 
3 
or use of those products equates to specialized knowledge or specify how the Beneficiary obtained 
knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. The Director also found that the Petitioner did not provide 
evidence showing that the Beneficiary's job duties required specialized knowledge and it did not 
compare and contrast those duties from those of others in the industry. Accordingly, the Director 
instructed the Petitioner to identify which of its products, services, tools, or equipment or its processes 
and procedures require specialized knowledge, explain how the Beneficiary's knowledge is special 
and/or advanced, state how much training and work experience is required to attain such knowledge, 
and discuss how the Beneficiary's knowledge compares to that of others who are similarly employed 
within the employer or within the industry. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a statement reiterating information that it provided earlier in its 
initial supporting statements, pointing to the Beneficiary's nine-year period of employment and his 
attainment of a team lead position where the objective was to develop and implement various! I 
~ applications to improveD's digital apflicati
1
ns and analytics. The Petitioner emphasized the 
Beneficiary's close working relationship with s business associates and once again pointed to 
his "advanced knowledge of c=Js Business Policies." The Petitioner did not claim that the 
Beneficiary's advanced knowledge was applicable to the Petitioner's own processes and procedures, 
nor did it identify any such processes and procedures. In fact, the Petitioner listed various trainings 
that the Beneficiary received in subject matters that deal directly with "the end client[']s policies and 
procedures" and provided corresponding certificates showing that the Beneficiary successfully 
completed trainings i~ Is company policies regarding human resources concerns, such as records 
management, unlawful harassment, drug-free workplace, Medicare compliance, etc. However, 
evidence of these trainings farther detracts from the claim that the Beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge is related to his employer's processes and procedures. 
The Petitioner also made note of the Beneficiary's involvement in the implementation of its 
proprietary! I products within C=1 s digital infrastructure, claiming that the Beneficiary had 
"knowledge and lxpertye of the product" that enabled him to conduct the necessar~uct testing 
to ensure that th software functioned properly and could adequatyv adyess L_J s business 
needs. However, the Petitioner did not identify any characteristics in the products that require 
specialized knowledge. Although the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary is the only person within 
the company who has "technical knowledge of the entirety of the application," it did not establish that 
comprehensive knowledge is synonymous with specialized knowledge. Further, despite claiming that 
the Beneficiary "gained advanced knowledge on Financial applications" during his employment with 
the foreign entity, the Petitioner did not describe the financial applications, explain why advanced 
knowledge is required to work with these applications, or specify precisely when and how the 
Beneficiary attained the knowledge that it claims is advanced. Because the Petitioner claims that the 
Beneficiary's "technical knowledge of the applications" was gained while he was leading the team 
that developed those applications, it does not appear that the Beneficiary acquired knowledge that is 
claimed to be specialized during the time period he assumed the position of senior consultant. In fact, 
it is unclear precisely when the Beneficiary attained the level of knowledge that is claimed to be 
specialized. Further, despite highlighting the Beneficiary's lead role in developing its various! I I I applications and pointing to unique characteristics of the proprietary software, the 
4 
Petitioner does not explain why specialized knowledge was required either to work with these products 
or to lead an IT team in the products' development and implementation. 
Although the RFE response also contains a letter from the foreign entity, the letter does not provide 
additional information furthering the Petitioner's claim regarding the Beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge. Rather, it reiterates claims about the Beneficiary's "knowledge and expertise" of his 
employer's proprietary software and his position as a team lead and stresses that only the Beneficiary 
had comprehensive knowledge of "the entirety of the application from inception to implementation," 
while other team members had knowledge that was narrowed down to the specifics related to their 
assigned tasks. The letter included an abbreviated organizational chart, which depicted the Beneficiary 
as a senior consulting and indicated that he was overseeing a two-person team that consisted of one 
senior consultant and one consultant. The chart did not state that the Beneficiary assumed a team lead 
position, as claimed by the Petitioner, and no information was provided to distinguish the 
Beneficiary's job duties as senior consultant from those of the senior consultant who was claimed as 
one of the Beneficiary's subordinates. Further, the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence 
demonstrating that specialized knowledge is a prerequisite for having the comprehensive knowledge 
that the Beneficiary is claimed to possess, nor did it show that the Beneficiary's position as team lead 
reflected a level of knowledge that can be deemed as specialized in comparison to others. In fact, 
neither the Petitioner nor the foreign entity in their respective statements pointed to an increased level 
of complexity in the Beneficiary's job duties or described a progression in his level of knowledge to 
support the claim that the Beneficiary achieved specialized knowledge during his employment with 
the foreign entity. 
The Petitioner also provided multiple user and implementation guides, which describe the technical 
elements and instruct the user in the functionalities of the Petitioner's software. However, the 
Petitioner does not explain how these documents support the claim that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge. Although the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary received training that 
contributed to his gaining specialized knowledge, the only supporting evidence it provided included 
an email confirming the Beneficiary's registration for a 5-day Oracle workshop and multiple 
certificates showing successful completion of in-house trainings offered by the client regarding 
various human resources issues, such as fraud, waste, and abuse, records management, code of 
conduct, unlawful harassment, security awareness, and other similar trainings. It is unclear how either 
the Oracle training workshop or trainings on the Petitioner's client's HR concerns could have 
contributed to the Beneficiary's gaining specialized knowledge in the Petitioner's software products 
or its processes and procedures. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
On appeal, the Petitioner describes the functionalities of its software package and states that the 
Beneficiary led the development effort of various software tools within that package, claiming that the 
Beneficiary has specialized knowledge of these tools. However, the Petitioner does not offer evidence 
or information that furthers our understanding of the Beneficiary's knowledge or explains how that 
knowledge rises to the level of being specialized. Rather, the Petitioner cites to USCIS Policy 
Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-IB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), 
https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda, but does not provide evidence to demonstrate that the 
terms "special" and/or "advanced," which are defined in the memorandum, apply to the knowledge 
that the Beneficiary possesses. Further, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
5 
"advanced" based on his three years of experience working withc::J which resulted in his being 
"aware of the client's policies and business needs." However, the Petitioner has not identified any 
employer-specific processes and procedures and instead focuses on the Beneficiary's knowledge of 
the client. As such, the Petitioner has not effectively made a claim that the Beneficiary possesses 
knowledge that is "advanced." 
Although the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has knowledge of patented software tools that are 
specific to the petitioning organization, thus indicating that the Beneficiary's knowledge is "special," 
the record lacks evidence showing precisely how and when such knowledge was gained. Further, the 
Petitioner does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge is distinct or uncommon in 
comparison to others who are similarly employed in the IT industry. Rather, the Petitioner contends 
that the Beneficiary has a critical role in designing, developing, and implementing its software tools 
that includes testing the products to ensure their efficacy. However, the Beneficiary's significance in 
helping to develop and implement the Petitioner's software tools does not establish that his knowledge 
of those tools is specialized or that it is different from other software developers. Likewise, the fact 
that the Beneficiary uses the Petitioner's patented product in the course of carrying out his duties also 
does not establish that the Beneficiary's knowledge rises to the specialized level. In fact, despite 
claiming that the Beneficiary was involved in developing, implementing, and enhancing the patented 
software tool, the Petitioner does not specify the Beneficiary's contributions, if any, in creating the 
patented product or specify the specialized knowledge needed to make those contributions. Moreover, 
as previously noted, the Petitioner focuses on the Beneficiary's years of employment with the same 
entity, but does not clarify when and how the Beneficiary gained the knowledge that is claimed to be 
specialized. Although the Beneficiary's employment history with the same employer is relevant, it 
alone does not establish how the Beneficiary gained specialized knowledge or that the knowledge he 
gained is not common among similarly employer individuals in the IT industry. 
In light of the evidentiary deficiencies described above, 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 is dismissed. 
6