dismissed L-1B Case: Technology Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB.12,2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a technology services provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"Senior Revenue Assurance Analyst" under the L-1 B non immigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 ( a)( l 5)(L ). The L-1 B classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee with "specialized knowledge" to 
work temporarily in the United States. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that.the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, that he has been 
employed abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge, and that he will be employed in a 
specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked relevant evidence of the Beneficiary's 
eligibility and applied the "wrong standard -of legal proof." The Petitioner emphasizes that it 
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge 
as defined in the statute, regulations, and a 2015 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
policy memorandum. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
, 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B nonimmigrarit visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's appiication for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her sen'.ices to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a specialized knowledge capacity. Id. 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). 
.
· Matter of S-, Inc. 
Under the statute, a beneficiary is considered to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: (I) a 
"special" knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an 
"advanced" level of knowledge of the pro<::esses and procedures of the company. Section 
214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). A petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting 
evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the statutory 
definition of specialized knowledge. ' 
Specialized knowledge is also defined as 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner's group has more than 900 employees worldwide and provides business and operational 
support solutions and managed services to the world's leading communications services providers. 
The Beneficiary joined the Petitioner's foreign parent company in August 2014. He is currently 
employed as an associate manager assigned to the offshore team for a "Revenue Assurance Operations 
Managed Services" project for the Petitioner's client, The Petitioner seeks to transfer him 
to its Colorado headquarters to serve in the position of "Senior Revenue Assurance Analyst". at an 
annual salary of $80,000, and states ·that he will continue to work on the same project.' The 
Beneficiary has a bachelor's degree in telecommunications engineering. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
In the denial decision, the Director found that the Petitioner did not explain with sufficient 
specificity how the Beneficiary's familiarity with the company's tools, products and processes 
equates to specialized knowledge, and had not shown how the Beneficiary's current and proposed 
positions require him to possess knowledge that is truly different, uncommon, or advanced compared 
to that possessed by similarly employed workers in the industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision did not adequately consider the 
supporting statements and evidence submitted in support of the petition. The Petitioner emphasizes 
that the Beneficiary possesses both special and advanced knowledge of its proprietary 
product and tool, as well as knowledge of the client project, and therefore 
P,Ossesses knowledge that cannot be found in the United States and canriot be easily transferred to 
another employee. 
1 The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will be based at its offices in Colorado and will not work primarily at the 
client's worksite. · We note that the submitted Master Services Agreement and Statement of Work indicate that 
employees assigned to the project would work in India if part of the off-shore team, and at the client's 
Washington site if assigned to work in the United States. 
2 
.
Matter of S-, Inc. 
The Petitioner further argues that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a specialized knowledge 
employee consistent with the USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-1 B Adjudications Policy 
(Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. Specifically, the Petitioner contends 
that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity involving assignments that enhanced the 
company's productivity and competitiveness, possesses knowledge that can be gained only through 
prior experience with the petitioning organization and cannot be easily transferred, and that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of is complex and of a highly technical nature. 
' 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 he has been employed abroad in a position 
involving specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United States in a specialized 
·knowledge capacity. Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has both special and advanced 
knowledge. 
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. 
A. Special Knowledge 
Determining whether a beneficiary has "special knowledge" requires revie,w of a given beneficiary ' s 
knowledge of how the petitioning organization manufactures, produces , ,or develops its products, 
. services, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. Because "special 
knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its 
application in international markets, a petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the 
beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other 
similarly employed workers in the particular industry. Knowledge that is commonly held throughout 
a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to another is not considered 
special knowledge. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has "extensive specialized knowledge" of the 
2 product (specifically versions 2.6, 5.0, and 5.4) and tool gained 
through nearly four years of experience in the position of "associate manager" with the foreign 
entity, through both training and ori-the-job experience with these proprietary technologies. 
is a platform solution developed by the Petitioner's group, and 
is one of several products offered on this platform. 
3 
.
. Malter of S-, Inc. 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the record contains some apparent discrepancies regarding the 
Beneficiary's employment history and assignments with the foreign entity. The Petitioner 
consistently states that he was hired in the position of "associate manager" in 2014, but submitted his 
pay statements for the year preceding the filing of the petition, which show that his job title was 
"senior analyst" through June 2017, and that he assumed the "associate manager" position, in July 
2017 , nearly three years after joining the company , and less than one year prior to the filing of this 
petition . 
With respect to the Beneficiary's specific assignments, the Petitioner has stated that he has been 
assigned to the current project either since the project's inception or since he joined the 
foreign entity in 2014, but it also claimed that he worked on another project for as 
· recently as 2016. The record reflects that the Petitioner originally signed a 
agreement with in 2012 and renewed it in 2016, so it is 
evident that the Beneficiary has not been assigned to this project since its inception. 
These ambiguities in the record are notable because the Petitioner claims that the duties to be 
performed in the United States require at least three years of extensive training and experience with 
both the Petitioner ' s proprietary technology and the client project , and emphasizes that the 
Beneficiary's associate manager role itself is indicative of his specialized knowledge. 
Nevertheless, we do not doubt that the Beneficiary is proficient with implementation of the 
Petitioner's product and use of the tool. The question 
before us is whether his knowledge of these technologies rises to the level of special knowledge. 
The fact that the platform and solution were developed by the/Petitioner's 
group does not establish .that all employees who work with these products possess knowledge that is 
truly different or uncommon and could not be transferred to a similarly experienced IT professional 
through a short period of training. Knowledge that is proprietary or company-specific must still be 
either special or advanced. 
The Petitioner indicates that its proprietary tools and products are heavily utilized throughout the 
company _and that "select employees" are provided with training on one or more specific products so 
that the company can better serve its clients . If the Petitioner establishes that its proprietary products 
are sufficiently complex that all of its employees who work with them have to undergo considerable 
training in order to perform their assigned duties , this fact may support a finding that knowledge of 
the proprietary products and tools alone constitutes "special knowledge. " However, the Petitioner 
has not made such a claim. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's own formal company training, the Petitioner has presented vague 
information and limited supporting documentation. First, as noted, the Petitioner has indicated that 
it would take three years of extensive training to obtain the required specialized knowledge to work 
on the project. At the same time, it claims to have hired the 
Beneficiary as an associate manager on this project and states that he has been performing the same 
or similar duties since the time he was hired. If this is correct , then it appears that he was hired with 
the requisite technical and functional background to quickly acclimate to the Petitioner ' s proprietary 
4 
.
Matter of S-, Inc. 
products and their implementation for this client, and it is unclear when he himself completed three 
years of extensive training. The Petitioner has neither claimed nor documented that he has assumed 
progressively more specialized or complex responsibilities while employed by the foreign entity. 
In support of its claims regarding the Beneficiary's training, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the 
foreign ent~ty's human resources manager who states that he "has attended different programs via 
classroom training and on-the-job trainings on advanced modules as of March 2016 and has 
expertise" in (v. 2.6, 5.0 and 5.4) and tool. The Petitioner 
submitted "training agendas" for these four products indicating course durations ranging from three 
to five days; the total training time amounts to only 15 days. One course description indicates that 
attendees must have "background and a basic understanding of the telecom industry, in particular 
with UNIX, Windows, or Sun System Administration tasks and management," while another 
requires telecom industry background, including the processes, systems and data flows involved in 
order management and usage data management. 
While w~. acknowledge that training in these specific products is not available outside the 
Petitioner's organization, the record does not establish how knowledge of the products qualifies as 
special ' or advanced among IT workers who work in the Petitioner's industry. Proprietary 
knowledge that .can be easily transferred to an employee with an appropriate technical background 
through completion of short training courses does not rise to the level of specialized knowledge. 
Further, as noted, the Petitioner does not appear to claim that all employees that have training and 
experience with its products have specialized knowledge. Rather, it attempts to differentiate the 
Beneficiary from other workers who have completed the same standard company training. · 
However, although the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge of 
and tool that is special in comparison to other employees within 
the company, but does not sufficiently distinguish his knowledge from that possessed by other 
employees working on projects. For example , the Petitioner consistently 
highlights that fact that he is "responsible for developing parsers in tl}e tool, utilizing 
to translate data into telecom revenue results and loading data to 
These specific skills are mentioned in the "training agenda" course descriptions for the 
three- to five-day and courses documented in the record. These 
appear to be standard internal trainings and the Petitioner has not supported a claim that the 
knowledge imparted . to trainees who complete the courses is considered distinct or uncommon 
among its own employees. In fact, some of the documented courses are intended for "new users." 
The Petitioner also highlights the Beneficiary's existing knowledge of the project and 
states that the agreement with the client requires his transfer to the United States at this time to 
undertake the "next phase" of the project. In addition, it claims that he possesses knowledge related 
to the project not possessed by any other team member, but has not sufficiently supported this claim. 
The Petitjoner submitted evidence that it entered into the 
agreement with in September 2012, two years before the Beneficiary joined the 
foreign company. The submitted agreements indicate that the Petitioner 's group has been 
responsible for providing services to through an on-site team and off-shore team model 
5 
.
Matter of S-, Jnc. 
since that time, and the company's teams have always included lead analysts 
and developers. In light of this· evidence, it is unclear how the Beneficiary came to hold knowledge 
of the project that is not possessed by his peers. In fact, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary 
was assigned to a different client project as recently as 2016 and has not adequate supported its 
claim that he has worked with since he joined the foreign entity. 
A current organizational chart for the Washington-based on-site team indicates that the 
Petitioner has a team lead, senior engineer, senior consultant, senior analyst and. a 
analyst already assigned to the client. The Petitioner's proposed organizational chart 
indicates that the Beneficiary will join this team as the second "senior analyst" based at the client 
work-site, but it elsewhere indicated that he will be based primarily at its headquarters in Colorado. · 
The Petitioner has not provided information regarding the duties, training, and experience of the 
other team members assigned to the project to support its claim that the Beneficiary's knowledge of 
the product is distinct or uncommon compared to the other team members in the 
U.S. or abroad . 
Given that the Petitioner provided evidence that it has a long-term managed 
services contract with , it is reasonable to believe that the workers already assigned to the 
contract have th·e requisite background with the product. The Petitioner states 
that the Beneficiary has critical knowledge needed for the "next phase" of the project and that his 
knowledge cannot be duplicated, but it did not explain what the "next phase" involves or how his 
knowledge differs from the experts already assigned to the U.S. client's 
worksite. Further, given that the Petitioner indicates that it has platform installations 
worldwide, it is likely that many employees throughout the organization are capable of installing and 
supporting and other products in the Petitioner's portfolio after undergoing a short 
period of training . in these products. 
Overall, the record contains insufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's knowledge of 
the Petitioner's proprietary tools and products, combined with his familiarity with the 
project, constitute "special knowledge" that is truly distinct or uncommon compared to knowledge 
generally possessed among similarly trained IT professionals in, the Petitioner's industry. The 
Petitioner has not described his specialized knowledge with sufficient specificity, nor has it 
adequately explained how the claimed specialized knowledge is normally gained within the 
organization. Further, the record does not establish when or how the Beneficiary himself gained the 
claimed specialized knowledge, particularly given the ambiguities in the record regarding his 
employment history and assignments within the foreign company. The Petitioner's claims are overly 
broad and not supported by sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner has not established , in the alternative , that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge . Determinations concerning "advanced knowledge " require review of a beneficiary's 
knowledge of the petitioning organization's processes and procedures. A petitioner may meet its 
burden through evidence that a given beneficiary has knowledge of or expertise in the organization's 
6 
.
/ 
Maller of S-. Inc. 
processes anc,l 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. Also, as with special knowledge , a petitioner ordinarily must 
demonstrate that a beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the particular industry 
and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. 
The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge of specific 
company processes or procedures, but indicates that his knowledge of the 
and products is advanced relative to his colleagues assigned to the same project team 
in India. In fact, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity's human resources manager 
indicating that the Beneficiary' knowledge of and is "far 
superior to any other employee of (the company] ." In support of this claim, the Petitioner 
emphasizes that the Beneficiary has provided training to his team members, that he has been 
recognized as an exceptional employee by winning a "Bravo Team" award and a commendation 
from a client, and that he has authored two documents as part of his assignment to the 
team. 
As evidence that the Beneficiary has provided training to others, the Petitioner submitted internal 
emails indicating that he was involved in training new off-shore team members on the 
project in 2016 and 2017. However, the training responsibilities outlinec,l in these e-mails indicate 
that all members of the off-shore team participated in training new colle_agues in 
and For example , when a product specialist joined the team in July 2016, 
the Beneficiary was one of three team members responsible for providing training in 
and Some training was completed through self-study and some 
through the and it appears that the total training period for the new employee 
was not lengthy. A training plan for a senior engineer who joined the project team in 
August 2017 was similar - the entire team was expected to trairi the new member in 
applications over a period of eight days, and the Beneficiary and another employee were 
assigned to provide a one-day training in The recqrd does not support a finding that 
the provision of training to a new team member is indicative of advanced kn?wledge nor does it 
demonstrate how the Beneficiary's kqowledge is "far superior.'' 
While the Beneficiary's knowledge of and may be considered 
advanced compared to a brand new team member assigned to this project, the ·Petitioner must still 
show that he possesses advanced knowledge in comparison to similarly employed workers and that 
the knowledge cannot be readily transferred to another employee with a similar technical skill set. 
The evidence indicates that new team members require only a sh011 period of training upon joining 
an ongoing project. As noted above , the Petitioner has not provided statements 
or supporting evidence detailing the qualifications , knowledge, and experience of other members of 
the offshore and on-site teams , or evidence regarding the qualifications and experience of 
other company employees engaged in similar managed services projects 
for other clients. The Petitioner ' s claim · that the Beneficiary has unmatched expertise with this 
product and with the -~-- tool is not corroborated by the submitted evidence. 
7 
.
Matter of S-, Inc. 
We note that the Beneficiary's "Bravo Team " award was given to the foreign entity's five-person 
team as a whole for "doing a good job in handling Operational Tasks," and does 
not appear to recognize ·the Beneficiary's "far superior" knowledge arid skills. Similarly, the client 
"commendation" referenced by the Petitioner is a letter from a client that the 
Petitioner states the Beneficiary worked with in 2016. The client recommends 
and the .Petitioner's managed services offerings , and praises "the commitment and 
approach " of the managed services team assigned to their company . The letter does not mention the 
Beneficiary or his application of advanced knowledge to the project. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of two documents authored by the Beneficiary in connection with 
the project. The dates on the document post-dat~ the filing of the petition, and the 
Petitioner has not explain~d the significance of the papers or why they are indicative of his special or 
advanced knowledge. 
We also acknowledge the Petitioner ' s claim that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a 
specialized knowledge employee consistent with the USCJS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111 , L­
IB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https:/ /www.uscis.gov /laws/policy-memoranda. However, 
for the reasons discussed, 'the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidenc.e to establish that the 
Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is either special or advanced. While we do not doubt that the 
platform and product are critical to the · company's productivity and 
competitiveness· in the marketplace, and the Beneficiary is skilled in providing services related to 
these products, this characteristic alone is ·not probative of the Beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge . As noted in the memorandum, the "characteristics" listed by the Petitioner are only 
"factors that USCIS may consider when det~rmining whether a beneficiary ' s knowledge is 
specialized." Id. The memorandum emphasizes that "ultimatel y, it is the weight and type of 
evidence that establishes whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge." Id. at 13. The 
Petitioner here has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish how the Beneficiary's knowledge 
qualifies as "special " or "advanced." 
Finally, we note the Petitioner's argument that the Director applied the wrong legal standard of 
· review to the submitted evidence, and its claim that the preponderance of the evidence standard 
applicable here is a "very low standard. " The Petitioner correctly states that it must establish that it 
meets each eligi bi] ity requirement for the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence . Matter 
ofChawathe , 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other words , a petitioner must show that 
what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably " true. To determine whether a petitioner has 
met its burden under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the 
quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id at 376; Matter of 
E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
The Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced and "far superior " to any other 
' employee in the company is not sufficiently detailed and is not adequately supported by evidence 
that sets him apart from others or establishes his knowledge as special or advanced. Further , the 
Petitioner has not established that knowledge of its proprietary products alone is sufficient to 
establish "specialized knowledge " because it has not .shown that this proprietary knowledge is 
8 
Matter of S-, Inc. 
sufficiently · distinct or uncommon or that it could not be readily transferred to another IT 
professional with the requisite_ functional and technical background. Th~ Petitioner's claim that it 
would require three years to acquire the knowledge needed for the U.S. position is simply not 
supported by the record. While we do not doubt that the Beneficiary possesses the skills necessary 
to fill the U.S. position, the Petition_er has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that he 
possesses specialized knowledge. 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, 
we need not further address whether the Beneficiary has· been employed abroad in a position 
involving· specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established· that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
( 
. Cite as Matter ofS-. Inc., ID# 2107223 (AAO Feb. 12, 2019) 
9