dismissed L-1B Case: Tax Preparation Services

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
)) -, 
/ 
File: 
 WAC 05 235 501 53 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 JAN 19.m 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
WAC 05 235 51053 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed tlus nonirnrnigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1B nonimrnigrant 
intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 4 1 lOl(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a California general partnership, states that it 
provides tax preparation services and operates as an electronic tax transmitter for the Internal Revenue Service. 
The petitioner claims to be the parent company of the beneficiary's foreign employer, 1 
Inc., located in Mandaluyong City, Philippines. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as an 
electronic transmission specialist. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge as a result of his experience with the foreign entity or that he will be employed in the 
United States in a capacity that involves specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's decision contained a critical misstatement of fact. The 
petitioner asserts that the knowledge the beneficiary possesses of electronic tax transmission error detection and 
resolution is "unusual, advanced and truly specialized knowledge," requiring training, education or experience 
directly related to the proposed duties in the United States. The petitioner submits a brief and additional 
documentary evidence in support of the appeal. 
To establish L-1 eligbility under section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 9 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, withn three years preceding the 
beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year by a 
qualifying organization and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his or her 
services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or 
involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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. 
WAC 05 235 51053 
Page 3 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
This matter presents two related but distinct issues: (1) whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge; 
and (2) whether the proposed employment is in a capacity that requires specialized knowledge. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1184(c)(2)(B), provides: 
For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered to be seMng 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. tj 214.2(l)(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 nonimmigrant petition was filed on August 24, 2005. The petitioner, a tax preparation service and 
"Authorized IRS e-File Provider," stated in an attached document titled "Brief Business Principles and Plans," 
that the U.S. company outsources electronic data filing accuracy review to its Philippine subsidiary, and seeks 
to increase efficiency by relocating the outsourced staff from the Philippines to the U.S. office for four 
months during every U.S. tax season. In an attachment to Form 1-129, the petitioner described the 
beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States as follows: 
Electronic Transmission Specialist: Under the supervision of [the petitioner's] Managing 
Partner of the company [the beneficiary] will receive, review and prepare for electronic filing 
of Income Tax Returns of various satellite offices, using data criteria of mainframe computer 
network system of Internal Revenue Service. Coordinate with suppliers for delivery and 
maintenance of transmission equipment and other expendable supplies. Coordinate with 
software developer on client's data that are encountering problems on system acceptance. 
The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary has been employed as the Vice President for Outsourcing, 
Transmission and Technical Operations with the foreign entity since July 1, 2003. The petitioner submitted 
the following description of the beneficiary's current position with the foreign entity: 
Derives authority from the President of the company. Responsible for the hiring, training, and 
general supervision of outsourcing personnel. Responsible for electronic transmission of 
WAC 05 235 51053 
Page 4 
outsourced data to US Head Office. Ensures the development of facilities and installation of 
equipment, including the acquisition of updated transmission software. Conceptualizes and 
implements marketing strategies for eventual expansion of outsourcing services and areas of 
transmission operations. 
1. Ensures that data encoded reconciles with the data submitted and signed by clients. 
2. Reconciles received files with transmitted files and acts on any inconsistency. 
3. Performs electronic data transmission between the U.S. based operations and the Asian 
counterparts, especially on outsourced data 
4. Coordinates and conducts training of onsite personnel involved in outsourced data entry 
operations. 
5. Directs the smooth flow and efficiency in servicing clients. 
6. Ensures efficient operations of on and off site computer facilities by ordering the correct 
specifications of transmission equipments. 
7. Ensures acquisition of various transmission software updates from Head Office. 
8. Ensures confidentiality of all internal systems, procedures, and customer data. 
9. Directs the design of advertising materials for publication in various dailies. 
10. Performs other tasks as may be assigned from time to time. 
The petitioner stated that the beneficiary's current position requires two years of experience in electronic data 
transmission, two years of professional experience in tax practice, five years of managerial experience, and 
proficiency in computer applications such as Excel, Word and Powerpoint. 
The director issued a request for evidence on September 28, 2005. In part, the director requested that the 
petitioner explain: (1) how the duties performed by the beneficiary abroad and those he will perform in the 
United States are different or unique from those of other workers employed by the petitioner or other U.S. 
employers in this type of position; (2) exactly what is the equipment, system, product, technique or service of 
which the beneficiary has specialized knowledge, and whether it is used by other employers in the United 
States and abroad; (3) how the beneficiary's training is exclusive and significantly unique in comparison to 
that of others employed by the petitioner or another person in the beneficiary's field; and (4) the impact upon 
the petitioner's business if the petitioner is unable to obtain the beneficiary's services, and what alternative 
action will be taken to fill the responsibilities. The director also requested a more detailed description of the 
beneficiary's current duties in his role with the foreign entity. 
In a response received on November 29, 2005, the petitioner provided the following more detailed description 
of the beneficiary's current duties with the foreign entity with respect to electronic data transmission: 
Based on e-mail advisory or facsimile messages from US Head Office and US satellite 
offices, the beneficiary lists down references numbers (e.g., SSN, EIN, FIN) of clients 
needing to be reviewed. 
WAC 05 235 51053 
Page 5 
Opens e-mail and down load clients['] tax returns files of IRS' 1040, 1 120, 1041, 1065, 2555 
and others sources files of filled-up tax forms according to taxpayer types and saves the 
electronic file per client under IRS approved transmission software (Drake Software). 
Reviews the contents as to the correctness of entries of names of the taxpayer, names of 
employer or paying party, address of the taxpayer or paying party, civil status, SSN, EN, or 
FIN, as the case maybe [sic], and compares entnes vis-a-vis Forms W-2, W-2G, 1099, 
1099DIV, 1099INT, 1099B, 1099G and other forms indicating sources of income of the 
taxpayer. Compares the data with the prior years data, if any. 
Compares current tax returns with prior years tax returns and notes down any unjustified or 
unreasonable changes of data. 
Coordinates with US Head Office and US satellite offices tax preparers and encoders and 
seeks clarification on questionable items. 
Sets aside cleared client files for electronic transmission; uncleared files are left pending. 
Daily, opens e-mails to upload taxpayers income tax returns that have been previously 
cleared for transmission. Using the Drake software protocol, transmits tax returns to IRS and 
State Computers. As a common example, the protocol would require conformity of tax 
payable or tax refundable amounts appearing on the list of tax returns for transmission with 
previously mentioned e-mail advisory or facsimile messages sent by the tax preparer. Any 
discrepancy will have to be investigated. In some cases, the investigation would show that the 
software of the tax preparer was not updated. 
With 12 hours, using the Drake Software protocols, downloads Federal and State Tax 
authorities' acknowledgements of tax return and takes note of rejected files. 
Verifies rejection codes and decodes the same and executes error resolution processes 
depending of [sic] types of errors encountered. . . . 
Seeks assistance from US-based tax preparer for acquisition of correct data and introduce the 
necessary correction on the tax returns file. 
When the correct data are introduced to the tax returns file, re-transmits the file and waits for 
results. 
In response to the director's request that the petitioner explain any special or advanced duties to be performed 
by the beneficiary, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's proposed responsibilities "are unique and cannot 
be performed by other US-based employees." The petitioner emphasized that other United States employees 
desire permanent, year-round positions, a demand that the petitioner cannot fulfill due to the seasonal nature 
of the tax preparation business. The petitioner further stated "these other US-based employees bear no 
WAC 05 235 5 1053 
Page 6 
experience in outsourcing, technical data review, and electronic transmission." 
 The petitioner further 
described the beneficiary's proposed duties as follows: 
The Beneficiary will review the encoded data prepared by the U.S.-based Tax Preparers for 
acceptability by IRS computer mainframe and State computers. 
Another task that the beneficiary in the US soil will perform is the transmission of tax data to 
IRS and State computers. The transmission to computer mainframes is a highly technical task 
that only well-trained transmitters can handle. The U.S.-based tax preparers can no longer 
have the time to perform the duties of transmission due to the increasingly high volume of 
clients asking for assistance in the income tax returns preparations, aside from being too busy 
with encoding especially during the peak tax season. 
The third task that will be assigned to the Beneficiary . . . is the handling of errors. Again, this 
tasks is highly technical and only trained individuals are allowed to carry out the job. The 
task requires familiarity with coded error messages and the expertise on how to get to the 
bottom of the errors. If errors are not resolved in time clients will start complaining and will 
question the credibility of the Company. Furthermore, under a face-to-face situation, there is 
better opportunity for the Beneficiary to interact personally with the tax preparer and/or 
clients in the resolution of error messages.. . . 
The Beneficiary, as a US-based employee, will be required to assist during the busy season of 
income tax return submission to the IRS for the months of February, March and April. The 
employee will return to foreign subsidiary right after the peak season to assume his usual 
duties abroad. 
The petitioner further explained that electronic transmission of tax returns and error management are "special 
skills that the Beneficiary has acquired over the years," requiring familiarity with the tax software utilized by 
the company, as well as familiarity with error codes utilized by tax authorities. The petitioner stated that error 
management is a "special skill" that is "uniquely required of the processes, not readily available among the 
employees of the Company, and perhaps in the U.S." The petitioner indicated that the petitioner and its 
related offices utilized a professional tax preparation and electronic-filing software designed by m 
td., stressing that the software is not commercially available. The petitioner further stated that 
its data encoders undergo extensive training in the software, and must keep updated on yearly enhancements 
and upgrades. 
With respect to the beneficiary's training, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary has been involved in the 
hands on review and transmission of data to the IRS and state tax authorities since 1999, and has attended 
training sessions in the United States and in the Philippines that were conducted under the supervision and 
coaching of the petitioner's managing partner. The petitioner further explained that the beneficiary's training 
was concentrated in the review of data provided by the client and the tax preparers, noting that he was 
formally trained in the transmission of tax documents, error resolutions of rejected returns and transmission of 
refilled data using Drake Tax Solutions. The petitioner emphasized that the beneficiary possesses six years of 
WAC 05 235 51053 
Page 7 
transmission experience, noting that "any new or seasonal employee cannot match the beneficiary's 
familiarity of error codes and expertise." The petitioner further indicated that the beneficiary's responsibility 
for reviewing, transmitting and decoding activities are distinct from those performed by the petitioner's tax 
preparers, and that his responsibility for monitoring production performance of the petitioner's satellite offices 
is "unique and distinct fi-om all other jobs." As evidence of the beneficiary's training, the petitioner submitted 
a certificate indicating that the beneficiary attended a five-day training session in "Electronic Transmission 
Using 
 Solutions" held at the petitioner's office in September 2002. 
The petitioner indicated that without the beneficiary's services, the petitioner "would have to spend more time 
and efforts to scrutinize all the entnes thus making the work more time consuming and less clients to serve, 
therefore, less business opportunities." 
The director denied the petition on December 27,2005, concluding that the petitioner had not established that 
the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, or that the offered position requires specialized knowledge 
of the petitioner's products, processes or other interests. The director observed that the petitioner is using 
software developed by a third-party company, not a proprietary software developed by the petitioner itself. 
The director noted that, based on the petitioner's representations, other employees who could competently 
perform the proposed duties of the position are available, and "the only obstacle in hiring them is their 
demand for a permanent position." 
The director further determined that the beneficiary's proposed duties appear to be typical of any employee 
worlung in an electronic tax return transmission office and have not been shown to require specialized 
knowledge. The director acknowledged the beneficiary's six years of experience in tax data transmission, but 
found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is advanced relative to the 
petitioner's industry at large. The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated "that the 
beneficiary has unusual, advanced or specialized knowledge of the petitioning organization that would be 
gained only by the completion of substantial or extensive specialized training, education, or experience 
directly related to the duties of the proffered position." 
The AAO observes that the director's decision includes the following statement: "The petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the parent company's food preparation techniques are so unique and out of the ordinary that 
their implementation requires specialized knowledge." The director's reference to the petitioner's parent 
company's "food preparation techniques" is withdrawn. Despite this erroneous reference, a review of the 
director's decision as a whole reveals that proper review and consideration was given to the evidence 
submitted by the petitioner, including the beneficiary's proposed job duties within the context of the 
petitioner's group's status as a tax preparer and provider of electronic tax return transmission services. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that "the petitioner does not prepare food and the petitioner is not in food 
preparation techniques." The petitioner attaches handbooks published by the Internal Revenue Service and the 
California Franchise Tax Board for use by authorized e-file providers of federal and California state tax 
returns, noting that these are "the very handbooks which the beneficiary was required to understand, be very 
knowledgeable with, and underwent training for." The petitioner notes that the handbooks contain "errors 
codes and sequencings," and that knowledge of the error codes "is not ordinary, not normal, nor usual." 
WAC 05 235 51053 
Page 8 
The petitioner further asserts that "this tax transmission error detection and resolution knowledge is unusual, 
advanced and truly specialized knowledge which can only be gained through substantial and extensive 
specialized training, education, or actual experience directly related to the duties of the proposed beneficiary." 
On review, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge or that the 
beneficiary is to perform a job requiring specialized knowledge in the proffered U.S. position. As noted above, 
the director's error in referring to the type of business operated by the foreign entity, while regrettable, does not 
lead to a conclusion that the director failed to properly consider the evidence submitted by the petitioner, or to 
understand that the petitioner in fact operates as an IRS authorized e-file provider. 
In examining the specialized knowledge capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a detailed description of 
the services to be performed sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. Id. It is also appropriate for the 
AAO to look beyond the stated job duties and consider the importance of the beneficiary's knowledge of the 
business's product or service, management operations, or decision-making process. See Matter of Colley, 18 
I&N Dec. 1 17, 120 (Comm. 198 1) (citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. 61 8 (R.C. 1970) and Matter of 
LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 8 16 (R.C. 197 I)).' As stated by the Commissioner in Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. 
49, 52 (Comrn. 1982), 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." Rather, the beneficiaries were considered to have unusual duties, slulls, or knowledge 
beyond that of a skilled worker. Id. The Commissioner also provided the following clarification: 
A distinction can be made between a person whose slulls and knowledge enable him or her to 
produce a product through physical or skilled labor and the person who is employed primarily 
for his ability to carry out a key process or function which is important or essential to the 
business' operation. 
Id. at 53. 
In this case, the petitioner neither asserted nor provided evidence that the beneficiary has acquired specialized 
knowledge of the organization's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management or other interests 
and its application in international markets, or that she possessed an advanced knowledge or expertise in the 
1 
Although the cited precedents pre-date the current statutory definition of "specialized knowledge," the AAO 
finds them instructive. Other than deleting the former requirement that specialized knowledge had to be 
"proprietary," the 1990 Act did not significantly alter the definition of "specialized knowledge" from the prior 
INS interpretation of the term. The 1990 Committee Report does not reject, criticize, or even refer to any 
specific INS regulation or precedent decision interpreting the term. The Committee Report simply states that 
the Committee was recommending a statutory definition because of "[vlarying [i.e., not specifically incorrect] 
interpretations by INS," H.R. Rep. No. 101-723(I), at 69, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6749. Beyond that, the 
Committee Report simply restates the tautology that became section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Id. The AAO 
concludes, therefore, that the cited cases, as well as Matter of Penner, remain useful guidance concerning the 
intended scope of the "specialized knowledge" L- 1 B classification. 
WAC 05 235 51053 
Page 9 
company's processes and procedures. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
 Rather, the petitioner described an 
employee who has been and would be performing duties, including data review, electronic transmission of tax 
returns, and error resolution tasks, using knowledge that is widely known withn the beneficiary's occupation. 
The petitioner has not identified any aspect of the beneficiary's position that involves special knowledge 
specific to the petitioning organization and its foreign affiliate and has therefore failed to satisfy the essential 
element of eligibility for this visa classification. 
The beneficiary's training in the use of industry-standard tax preparation and electronic submission software 
and familiarity with the contents of IRS handbooks for authorized e-file providers, cannot considered specialized 
knowledge related to the petitioning organization and do not establish "specialized knowledge" as 
contemplated by the statute and regulations. Any worker who has worked extensively with the electronic 
filing of federal tax returns with the IRS could reasonably be expected to possess essentially the same 
knowledge, skills and experience as the beneficiary without having worked for the petitioner or the foreign 
entity. The petitioner has offered no documentary evidence which would distinguish the petitioner's and 
foreign entity's processes, strategies, methods, technologies or environment from that of any other company 
offering similar services. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The petitioner has not submitted any evidence of the knowledge and expertise required for the proffered 
position that would differentiate the beneficiary fiom other similarly-employed workers within the 
petitioner's group or working for other employers within the U.S. tax preparation and electronic filing 
industry. It is noted that the statutory definition requires the AAO to make comparisons in order to determine 
what constitutes specialized knowledge. As observed in 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. 9 
(D.D.C. 1990), "[slimply put, specialized knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a plain 
meaning." The term "specialized knowledge" is relative and cannot be plainly defined. The Congressional 
record specifically states that the L-1 category was intended for "key personnel." See generally, H.R. REP. 
No. 91 -85 1, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750. The term "key personnel" denotes a position within the petitioning 
company that is "of crucial importance." Webster's N New College Dictionary 605 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 
2001). In general, all employees can reasonably be considered "important" to a petitioner's enterprise. If an 
employee did not contribute to the overall economic success of an enterprise, there would be no rational 
reason to employ that person. An employee of "crucial importance" or "key personnel" must rise above the 
level of the petitioner's average employee. Accordingly, based on the definition of "specialized knowledge" 
and the Congressional record related to that term, the AAO must make comparisons not only between the 
claimed specialized knowledge employee and the general labor market, but also between that employee and 
the remainder of the petitioner's workforce. 
Although counsel refers to the beneficiary's six years of specialized experience in his field, it is clear that the 
knowledge and skills that allow him to successfully perform his duties are widely available to any employee 
performing similar responsibilities for any business authorized by the IRS to electronically prepare and 
submit U.S. tax returns. The petitioner has not explained how the knowledge and expertise required for the 
beneficiary's position would differentiate his knowledge from others with a similar educational and 
professional background, and has not substantiated its claim that the beneficiary's knowledge and skills are 
WAC 05 235 51053 
Page 10 
not available within the U.S. company, or within the United States. While it is undoubtedly helpful that the 
beneficiary is familiar with the petitioner's and foreign entity's business, the petitioner has not established 
that prior experience with the foreign entity is actually required in order to perform duties related to the 
electronic transmission of U.S. tax returns. Although the petitioner emphasizes the beneficiary's years of 
training, it has provided a copy of only one training certificate for his attendance of a five-day course in 
"Electronic Transmission Using Solutions." The petitioner has not substantiated its claim that the 
beneficiary's knowledge is advanced compared to other employees within the organization. Again, going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Further, as discussed above, the beneficiary's 
claimed specialized knowledge must relate specifically to the petitioning company. As noted by the director, 
the petitioner noted that its main obstacle to hiring employees locally was its inability to offer permanent 
positions due to the seasonal nature of its business. 
The beneficiary's knowledge and expertise do not include the type of special or advanced knowledge of the 
petitioner's products, processes or other interests required by the regulations. In Matter of Penner, 18 I&N 
Dec. 49 (Comm. 1982), the Commissioner held that "petitions may be approved for persons with specialized 
knowledge, not for skilled workers." In the instant case the petitioner has successfully demonstrated that the 
beneficiary is knowledgeable in the process of electronically submitting U.S. tax returns and correcting any 
resulting errors to ensure acceptance of tax returns. However, the plain meaning of the term "specialized 
knowledge" is knowledge or expertise of a company's product or processes and procedures, rather than skill 
in a particular field. The petitioner has not furnished evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the beneficiary's 
duties involve knowledge or expertise beyond what is commonly held in his field. The record does not 
establish that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge or that he would be employed primarily in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
In sum, the beneficiary's duties and technical skills, while impressive, demonstrate knowledge that is 
common among professionals working in the electronic tax return submission field. The petitioner has failed 
to demonstrate that the beneficiary's training, work experience, or knowledge of the company's processes is 
more advanced than the knowledge possessed by others employed by the petitioner, or that the processes used 
by the petitioner are substantially different from those used by other IRS-authorized electronic filing service 
providers. It is clear that the petitioner considers the beneficiary to be an important employee of the 
organization. The AAO, likewise, does not dispute the fact that the beneficiary's knowledge has allowed him 
to successfully perform his job duties for the foreign entity. However, as discussed, the petitioner has not 
submitted probative evidence to establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy, or 
distinguished by some unusual quality and not generally known in the beneficiary's field of endeavor, or that 
his knowledge is advanced compared to the knowledge held by other similarly employed workers within the 
petitioner and the foreign entity. Rather, an evaluation of the record reveals that other authorized e-file service 
providers utilize comparable tax transmission software and are required to be familiar with industry-standard 
IRS error coding processes and resolution procedures, and that other organizations employ workers 
possessing technical knowledge and skills equivalent to that of the beneficiary. 
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 
WAC 05 235 51053 
Page 11 
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 appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden or proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.