remanded L-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 31, 2024 In Re: 32655660 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker) 
The Petitioner, a software development company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"senior software engineer L2" 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 L-lB 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was qualified to perform the intended services in the United States. The 
matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB nonimmigrant 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 application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering their services 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 them to perform the 
intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if they have: (1) a "special" knowledge of the 
petitioning organization's product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" 
level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the petitioning organization. Section 
214(c)(2)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
Special knowledge concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and their 
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 uncommon 
in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular industry. 1 
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. 2 
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. 
The Petitioner filed the pet1t10n in July 2023. The Petitioner described itself as "a software 
development company that specializes in Big Data Analytics" involving the use of computer systems 
to mine and process massive amounts of data for the purpose of identifying patterns, correlations, 
market trends, client preferences, and other information that . . . allows companies to make more 
informed and strategic business decisions." The Petitioner indicated that it "develops and integrates 
software for medium and large corporations that manages, mines, processes, and analyzes those 
corporations' data." One of the Petitioner's proprietary tools, a "cloud accelerator" called I I 
helps customers to migrate large volumes of data. 
The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary joined the foreign employer in June 2021 as a senior 
software engineer. The Petitioner stated that once the Beneficiary was transferred to the United States 
he would continue to be assigned to a I project on the account" where 
he would apply "specialized knowledge of I a proprietary technology available only 
through the company's professional services. The Petitioner indicated that he gained experience 
working with I I and other integrated tools by working on the project in 
India, asserting that "this knowledge and experience is not easily transferred or taught to another 
individual without significant economic cost and inconvenience." The Petitioner further stated that 
they have "invested significant time and money to train [the Beneficiary] in the technologies and tools 
required to work on Big Data projects that use I I pointing to his over 400 hours of training 
at the company. The Petitioner asserted that only approximately 400 engineers had his level of training 
on I I and reasoned that this made the Beneficiary "part of only 0.0004 772% of software 
engineers" with his level ofl Iknowledge in the United States. The Petitioner contended that 
1 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual L.4(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 See id. 
2 
this sufficiently established that the Beneficiary held special knowledge, or knowledge that was 
distinct and uncommon in the industry. 
The Director later denied the petition, concluding that the Beneficiary was not "qualified to perform 
the intended services in the United States." Despite this conclusion, the Director also appeared to 
analyze whether the Petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary's knowledge was advanced or special 
as defined by the regulations within the section of the decision discussing whether he was sufficiently 
qualified. The Director concluded that although the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary had a 
wide range or skills an experience with I I it did not establish that this knowledge was 
"significantly different from that possessed by similarly employed workers in the industry." The 
Director further concluded the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his knowledge and expertise was 
greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity and understanding than other workers 
within the company. In addition, the Director stated that the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain 
how the Beneficiary's knowledge was gained within the organization. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously applied the standard of advanced 
knowledge, rather than special knowledge, and incorrectly concluded that the Beneficiary is not 
sufficiently qualified to perform the intended services under the petition. The Petitioner also asserts 
that the Director erred in determining that the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain how the 
Beneficiary gained knowledge of the proprietary I I tool. We agree. 
First, the Director improperly focused on whether the Beneficiary was qualified to perform the 
intended services, not whether his knowledge was special as defined by the regulations. Upon review, 
we conclude the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary is 
qualified to perform the intended services based on his education, work experience, and over 400 hours 
of training, including in the company's proprietary tool I I Further, we agree with the 
Petitioner that they provided a sufficient explanation as to how the Beneficiary gained his knowledge 
within the organization and that the Director focused too much on whether the Beneficiary's 
knowledge was advanced within the organization. The issue before the Director was whether the 
Petitioner properly established that the Beneficiary's knowledge was special, or distinct or uncommon 
in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the industry. 
The Director's erroneous conclusions appear to have heavily influenced the outcome of the decision. 
We will therefore withdraw that decision and remand the matter for a new decision that properly 
considers the evidence of record. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3