remanded L-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10134661 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 8, 2020 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, describing itself as an information technology company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a design verification engineer in the United States under the L-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish it had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. On appeal, the 
Petitioner contends that a discrepancy in its 2018 IRS Form 1120 U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return 
regarding its ownership was due to a mistake by its accountant. The Petitioner states it remedied this 
mistake by filing an amended return after it discovered this error when the Director issued her request 
for evidence (RFE). The Petitioner asserts it submitted sufficient supporting documentation, such as 
foreign employer share certificates, documentation from its accountant, and other evidence 
demonstrating it owns all of the foreign employer's shares. 
Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence on appeal to establish that it 
more likely than not wholly owns the foreign employer's shares; and as such, that there is a qualifying 
relationship between the entities. Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand it 
for the entry of a new decision. Notwithstanding our withdrawal of the Director's decision, we find 
that the record as presently constituted is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge. We note that as a threshold matter, if the Beneficiary does not possess 
specialized knowledge, then his position abroad and in the United States would not involve specialized 
knowledge as necessary to qualify him. 
The Petitioner indicates that it and the Beneficiary's foreign employer are design service companies 
and providers of "SOC/Chip/FPGA design and verification, embedded systems, application software 
and mechanical-thermal engineering design using CAD/CAM/CAE, and CAD customization." The 
Petitioner further stated that it and its affiliated companies offer "modular, reusable, and scalable VIP 
cores that enable it to build verification environments for module, chip and complex Socs." 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary had been employed by the foreign employer since 2010 
and was "utilized as a key employee abroad and ... given very significant and important assignments 
that have enhanced the company's productivity, competitiveness, image and financial positions." The 
Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary "contains knowledge and hands on experience 
in ... areas ... not generally available," including "working on VIP development for PCle and NAND 
Flash." It stated that the Beneficiary has been "involved in the design and verification of these VIPs," 
as well as verification test environments, test suite development, regressions, and debugging. The 
Petitioner further asserted that the foreign employer had developed "several products" noting that they 
"are significantly different from other products in the industry." 
In addition, the Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary gained "knowledge of the [company's] 
internally developed proprietary product software and processes" and noted that he is "very well 
versed in implementing these processes on customer projects to improve the efficiency and quality of 
deliverables." The Petitioner added that the Beneficiary's knowledge can "only been gained through 
extensive prior experience with the client" and that this knowledge is "distinct and uncommon in our 
industry, as well complex and further along than others in our company and in the industry." It also 
emphasized that the Beneficiary is "intimately familiar with the technical requirements for the client 
in the USA;" and noted his "familiarity with ongoing projects" as well as the "business and technical 
requirements of our clients." Lastly, it indicated that the Beneficiary developed "proprietary products, 
processes, and systems" and that "they can only be implemented efficiently by him." 
Under the statute, a beneficiary is considered to have specialized knowledge if he 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, 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 special 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(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and type 
of evidence that establishes whether 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 an employee is able to gain 
specialized knowledge within the organization and explain how and when the individual beneficiary 
gained such knowledge. 
Determining whether a beneficiary has "special knowledge" requires review 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 
2 
a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to another is not considered 
special 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 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. Also, as with special knowledge, the 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. 
First, the Petitioner has not clearly articulated whether the Beneficiary's knowledge qualifies as special 
or advanced, or both. Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently described the Beneficiary's 
knowledge. For instance, it vaguely stated that the Beneficiary holds knowledge of "VIP development 
for PCle and NANO Flash," "the design and verification of these VIPs," "internally developed 
proprietary product software and processes," and "technical requirements for the client in the USA." 
However, the Petitioner does not explain these technologies and specifically what they do, nor does it 
describe its software and processes in detail, or even indicate to which client or clients the Beneficiary 
provides services. In addition, it did not detail or document the "significant and impactful 
assignments" or the "ongoing projects" to which the Beneficiary was, and would be, assigned. 
Determining whether knowledge is "advanced" or "special" inherently requires a comparison of the 
beneficiary's knowledge against that of others. The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing such a 
favorable comparison. However, the Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate how the Beneficiary 
gained his claimed advanced knowledge when compared to his colleagues or how his knowledge was 
set apart from them. In turn, the Petitioner did not adequately explain how the Beneficiary acquired his 
claimed specialized knowledge when compared to similarly placed professionals in the industry. The 
Petitioner provided no specific comparisons to set the Beneficiary apart from his colleagues, both 
within the company and throughout the industry. The Petitioner only generically indicated that the 
knowledge held by the Beneficiary is proprietary, that he is "well versed," and that its products and 
processes can "only be implemented efficiently by him." However, knowledge being proprietary or 
client specific does not alone establish it as specialized according to the regulations, as companies 
commonly hold specific knowledge within their particular industries and knowledge of the 
requirements of their clients. 
For instance, the Petitioner submitted a foreign organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary, 
listed as a senior engineer, reported to the "Director [of the] Head India Design Center" along with 
four other senior engineers. The chart also reflected that each senior engineer oversaw two subordinate 
engineers. However, the Petitioner submitted provided no explanation as to how the Beneficiary's 
knowledge and experience compares to the other engineers within its organizational chart and how his 
knowledge is set apart. In fact, the Petitioner provided two invoices reflecting the provision of hourly 
services to a U.S. client in February and March 2019, just before the date the petition was filed, by 
two senior engineers and another subordinate engineer. The invoice indicated that the Petitioner 
charged the same hourly rate for both the senior and regular engineers, suggesting that all the 
3 
company's foreign based engineers have similar knowledge of the company's products and processes. 
The Petitioner also suggests that the Beneficiary developed certain "proprietary products, processes, 
and systems," but it does not explain or document th is development, nor does it indicate how this 
claimed development sets him apart from his colleagues providing similar services. 
Likewise, it provided no detail as to how the Beneficiary's knowledge compares to similarly placed 
professionals in the industry; professionals who appear to exist since the Petitioner acknowledged that 
others in the industry have developed its type of products and that "there may be similarities" between 
them. The Petitioner did not explain with specificity how its products, and in turn the Beneficiary's 
knowledge, are "different from other products in the industry." 
Therefore, without further detail and documentation, it is reasonable to conclude that there are other 
projects including several other colleagues working in roles requiring high levels of knowledge of the 
technology with which the Beneficiary works. Without detailed comparisons of the Beneficiary 
against his col leagues, it is not clear that his years of experience amount to special or advanced 
knowledge according to the regulatory definition. 
For the foregoing reasons, we are remanding this issue to the Director for analysis of the relevant 
factors above and for a determination as to whether the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge; 
and in turn, whether he is employed in a specialized knowledge capacity abroad and would be 
employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4