remanded L-1B Case: Software And Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10445995 
Appeal of Texas 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 a provider of software and services for asset management, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a senior analyst 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 Texas 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 the submitted evidence sufficiently establishes that it indirectly owns and 
controls the Beneficiary's foreign employer and that both entities are owned and controlled by the 
same corporate parent. 
Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it has a 
controlling interest in an entity owning and controlling the foreign employer. As such, the evidence 
demonstrates that the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
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 her 
positions abroad and in the United States would not involve specialized knowledge as necessary to 
qualify her. 
The Petitioner indicated that it is a "post-trade technology and services company that provides 
comprehensive post-trade solutions for alternative asset managers" and that it "combines proprietary 
software, technology, and an experienced team of professionals to deliver complete post-trade 
support." The Petitioner stated that it requires the Beneficiary in the United States for critical tasks 
and assignments due to a shortage of individuals with specialized knowledge of its complex 
proprietary systems and processes. The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary acquired this 
knowledge from her three years of experience working with the foreign employer and asserted that 
"there are currently no other employees within our global organization" that possess her exact 
qualifications. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would act as a senior analyst and "lead our firm's efforts to 
replace our legacy! ~ infrastructure with our customizable, 
sophisticated, and proprietary reconciliation technologies" such as l I 
I I."~---------~·" and I I" The 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary acquired "multiple years of directly related specialized and 
unique experience" noting that she "was cTefl] responsible for the core development and technical 
architecture of our proprietary I I and tools." The ~oner explained that the Beneficiary 
was integral to the creation and enhancement of itsl ~, L_J and I ~ initiatives 
and that she has "developed specialized knowledge ... more advanced than any other employee within 
our firm." 
The Petitioner also asserted that the Beneficiary was part of a three person core team "that 
conceptualized! ~.defined its technical architecture, and modelled the database schema 
layers," and further noted that she participated in "over sixty (60) hours ofl I training modules," 
while "the vast majority of [Petitioner] employees globally only receive 2 to 4 hours of training on the 
I I tool." Likewise, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has more than two years of special 
and advanced experience with customizinO and that "she participated in over sixty (60) hours of 
intensiveD training modules," whereas "employees globally only receive 4 to 5 hours of training." 
Lastly, it indicated that the Beneficiary also participated in "over seventy-five (75) hours ofl I I I training modules," but that its other employees "only receive 8 to 16 hours of training" on 
this platform. 
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 
2 
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. 
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. 
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 document its assertions with respect 
to the Beneficiary's claimed advanced knowledge as compared to her colleagues. For instance, the 
Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary was ';.crue.t)y responsible for the core development and technical 
architecture of our proprietary! I andl_Jtools across our global I I· and that 
her knowledge is "more advanced than any other employee" within its global organization. The 
Petitioner also pointed to the Beneficiary's work on a "threetersr core team that conceptualized 
I I' and discussed her extensive training inl I, and thel las 
compared to other employees within its organization. However, the Petitioner provides no supporting 
documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's claimed development of its essential proprietary tools 
nor any supporting evidence to substantiate her claimed extensive training in relation to her colleagues. 
It also provided no organizational chart to demonstrate the Beneficiary's place within its organization, 
did not explain how many others worked in her position abroad, nor did it identify her colleagues by 
name or specifically detail their years of experience in order to provide sufficiently credible comparisons. 
This lack of detail and documentation is noteworthy considering that the Petitioner indicated in the 
petition that it employed more than 600 individuals worldwide. Therefore, without sufficient 
documentary evidence to substantiate its claims regarding the Beneficiary's knowledge, development, 
and training, it has not sufficiently established that she holds the most knowledge in its organization of 
its discussed proprietary tools. In addition, the Petitioner provided no specific comparisons to set the 
Beneficiary apart from similarly placed professionals throughout the industry. The Petitioner only 
generically indicated that the knowledge held by the Beneficiary is proprietary and that she is the most 
knowledgeable in id I, D and I I technologies. However, knowledge being 
proprietary or client specific does not alone establish that it is specialized, as companies commonly 
hold specific knowledge within their particular industry and knowledge of the requirements of their 
particular clients. 
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 in which the Beneficiary works. Without detailed comparisons of the Beneficiary against 
3 
her colleagues, it is not clear that only approximately three years of experience amounts to special or 
advanced knowledge according to the regulatory definition. It is not sufficient to declare the 
Beneficiary the most knowledgeable in the organization, assert her claimed development of essential 
proprietary technologies, and contend that she has high levels of training in these tools without 
corroborating these assertions with supporting documentary evidence. 
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 she 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