remanded L-1B Case: Software Development

,*ntifving data deleled to 
p& dearly unwm 
of ~neRal odv%ic 
pUBLlc COPY 
U.S. Department of llomeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: WAC 04 222 53 176 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 1 1. ?m 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
[Robert P. 
d 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 222 53 176 
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 withdraw the 
director's decision and remand the matter to the director for further action and entry of a new decision. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the beneficiary's employment as an L-IB 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is an internet service 
provider and software development company. The petitioner claims to be an affiliate of Abacus Trade, 
Limited, located in Sofia, Bulgaria. The beneficiary was previously granted L-1B status in order to serve as a 
software engineer in the United States, and the petitioner now seeks to extend his status for a two-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge or that the U.S. position offered to the beneficiary requires an individual with 
specialized knowledge. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility as an intracompany transferee with 
specialized knowledge. Counsel observes that the beneficiary was previously granted L-1B classification 
based on essentially the same evidence and asserts that pursuant to an April 23, 2004 memorandum from 
William R. Yates, then Associate Director for Operations of the legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, the director "should not deny or challenge a previously approved petition or application, especially in 
those cases where there are no material changes that would impact the extension petition." Counsel asserts 
that there have been no material changes and requests that deference be given to the prior approval of an L-1B 
classification nonimmigrant petition on the beneficiary's behalf. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L). Specifically, a qualifying 
organization must have employed the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a 
specialized knowledge capacity, for one continuous year within the three years preceding the beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United 
States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate 
thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) 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. 
WAC 04 222 53 176 
Page 3 
(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. 
(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 with the petitioner is in a capacity involving 
specialized knowledge. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the following: 
For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered to be serving in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has 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. 5 214.2(1)(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 or procedures. 
In an August 4, 2004 letter, the petitioner described the beneficiary's position with the foreign entity and 
current duties with the United States entity as follows: 
From February 2000 to December 2001, [the beneficiary] worked as a software programmer 
for [the foreign entity] in Sofia, Bulgaria. Since October 2001, he has been working for [the 
petitioner] in San Diego, California. His duties have included writing and testing software of 
a web based system for billing, provisioning and customer care for internet service providers. 
The system includes on-line subscription billing, bank reconciliation, customer support, e- 
mail to customers, on-line statement review, RADIUS interface, and automated provisioning 
on a variety of Unix/NT/Win2K based servers. The RODOPI program is 100 percent web 
enabled. In this position, [the beneficiary] has become very familiar with the following 
programming languages, environments and development tools: C/C++, Basic, Pascal, SQL, 
HTML, XML, Borland C++ Builder, and Java Script. [The beneficiary] has worked on the 
following RODOPI Software modules: Administration module, Maintenance module, User 
WAC 04 222 53 176 
Page 4 
interface module, RODOPI billing services, RODOPI Web Interface, and RODOPI database 
structure. 
The petitioner further indicated that the beneficiary's duties in the United States are similar to those he 
performed in Bulgaria, explaining as follows: 
He has been working with our product known as RODOPI software, writing and testing 
software updates and developing its Internet component to provide our American customers 
with the new technologies of Voice-Over Internet, Fax-Over Internet, and Unified 
Messaging. [The beneficiary] was able to work on some of the modules needed for this new 
technology, however, since Voice-Over IP is unavailable in Bulgaria, he was unable to 
participate fully in their development. Since the American company has reached a vital point 
in the application of these technologies, [the beneficiary] has been essential to our American 
team in the development of a final version and its testing. 
Finally, the petitioner provided the following explanation with respect to the purpose for the beneficiary's 
transfer to the United States: 
The vast majority of our software clientele are American companies, and approximately ten 
percent of the Internet providers in the U.S. use our product. We work with the world's 
leading computer industry companies at this time, especially regarding our RODOPI 
software, and it is essential that we be able to have immediate access to new developments as 
we work in a field which is so cutting edge that new developments become obsolete almost as 
soon as they are developed and announced. 
There is a substantial difference between the high tech infrastructure in Bulgaria as compared 
to the United States, this difference is particularly acute in the Internet technology area. 
Because so many of our customers are U.S. Internet provider companies, we found it 
essential that our employees understand the reality of the conditions under which our clients 
work. This has become all the more important now with the emerging new technologies in 
the United States, such as Voice-Over Internet, Fax-Over Internet and Unified Messaging, all 
of which are virtually unknown in Bulgaria. 
[The beneficiary] has developed his knowledge of these new technologies and has learned to 
apply and integrate them into the RODOPI software we develop. He is heavily involved in 
the project to bring RODOPI up to date through the Voice-Over Internet, Fax-Over Internet 
and Unified Messaging. He is well versed in all the programming languages used in our 
software. . . . Therefore, [the beneficiary's] position is unique in that he has an understanding 
and a familiarity with our software, at the same time having the ability to work with the new 
technologies that have been developed here in the U.S. To remain an industry leader in the 
provisional billing software area we must continually update our products. [The beneficiary] 
is needed for us to continue to provide the best and most efficient provisional billing software 
products on the market. His skills and knowledge are under-utilized in our Bulgarian 
WAC 04 222 53 176 
Page 5 
company. It would take months to train an individual, already familiar with the new 
technologies, in the design and operation of our RODOPI software. With [the beneficiary] we 
have a person who has the required specialized knowledge who is also prepared to begin 
work now, when it is most crucial to both our company and our clients that we apply the U.S. 
technology to our software with which he is thoroughly familiar. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's resume, which confirms his experience in the 
development of RODOPI software for the petitioner and the foreign entity. 
The director denied the petition on August 21, 2004, concluding that the petitioner did not establish: (1) that 
the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge; or (2) that the beneficiary has been and would be employed 
in a capacity that requires specialized knowledge. The director observed that the petitioner had not furnished 
evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the beneficiary's duties involve knowledge or expertise beyond what 
is commonly held in his field, and noted that simply relying on the beneficiary's familiarity with the parent 
company, his talent, and his potential to contribute to the petitioner's growth is not sufficient to establish that 
he possesses specialized knowledge or has been and will be employed in a capacity involving specialized 
knowledge. The director further determined that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary's 
knowledge of the company's products, processes or procedures is substantially different from, or advanced in 
relation to, other skilled workers in the beneficiary's field. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner provides a detailed overview of the history of the U.S. company and its 
Bulgarian parent, and emphasizes the difference between the "high tech infrastructure" in Bulgaria as 
compared to the United States. Counsel explains the need for the beneficiary's transfer as follows: 
Because so many of Company's customers are U.S. Internet provider companies the 
Company found it essential that its employees understand the reality of the conditions under 
which the Company's clients work. This has become all the more important now with the 
emerging new technologies in the United States, such as Voice Over-IF', Wireless Broadband, 
and Content Delivery, all of which are virtually unknown in Bulgaria. 
[The beneficiary] has developed his expert level knowledge of these new technologies and 
has learned to apply and integrate them into the RODOPI software the Company develops. 
He has been heavily involved in the project to bring RODOPI up to date through the use of 
Voice Over-IF', Wireless Broadband, and Content Delivery. He is well versed in all the 
programming languages used in the Company's software . . . . However, [the beneficiary's] 
position is unique in that he has a developer's understanding and familiarity with the 
Company's software, and the suite of interdependent programmed modules that comprise it, 
while at the same time having the ability to work with the new technologies that have been 
developed here in the U.S. . . . With [the beneficiary], the Company has a person who has the 
required specialized knowledge, when it is most crucial to both the Company and its clients 
that the Company applies the U.S. technology to its software with which he is thoroughly 
familiar. 
WAC 04 222 53 176 
Page 6 
In the United States, [the beneficiary] has been charged with duties that augment those he 
discharged for the Company in Bulgaria. . . . He has been working with the Company's 
product known as RODOPI software, writing, developing, and testing software updates and 
developing its Internet component to provide the Company's American customers with the 
new technologies. . . . Through eight years of development, RODOPI has emerged as a 
completely integrated product that, through a complex suite of computer programs, serves the 
Company's clients' automated billing, provisioning, and customer care software needs. The 
Company's competitive advantage is that we are the only integrated service provider in the 
global market. The Company's core development is performed in the United States, and 
discrete pieces of development work are performed in Bulgaria at Abacus Trade. It is critical 
that the Company's core developers assist us in the United States. . . . 
[The beneficiary] is extraordinarily adept at developing the Requirements Definition, 
directing the design of the comprehensive modification, and utilizing the Company's 
proprietary Software Development Kits . . . . When the Company needs a new feature for a 
customer, the Company tasks [the beneficiary] with modifying the internal algorithms to 
incorporate that function. . . . [The beneficiary] is one of a very few individuals in the world 
that can quickly reengineer the core product components without disrupting the functioning 
of the product. . . . [The beneficiary] has performed much of the customization for specific 
important clients that are designated as "high risk." 
With respect to the beneficiary's claimed qualifying employment with the foreign entity, counsel 
explains as follows: 
[The beneficiary] was able to work on some of the modules needed for this new technology. 
However, since Voice-Over IP is unavailable in Bulgaria he was unable to participate fully in 
the product's development. Since the American Company has reached a vital point in the 
application of these technologies, [the beneficiary] has been essential to the Company's 
American team in the development, testing, implementation, and deployment of the product. 
He could not perform his function at the same level of effectiveness if he was working at the 
foreign company, as he would not be close to the client-base or the Company's other core 
developers. 
[He] possesses specialized knowledge of the RODOPI software, as it is applied in various 
international markets, because he has worked on projects adapting the product to a plethora of 
systems used by the Company's clients in more than 50 countries. Moreover, he has 
advanced knowledge, as compared to his colleagues, of how this product is used and can be 
applied in various technology environments, as he has implemented customization plans for 
various clients globally. 
WAC 04 222 53176 
Page 7 
His knowledge is not readily available in the U.S. job marketplace, for while individual 
software engineers may have a body of skills related to the various programming languages, 
they do not know the Company's software and how best to modify and customize it. His 
knowledge base is far deeper than a general understanding of how to code modifications. 
Instead, he has comprehensive, essential knowledge of the Company's product, and this 
specialized knowledge is needed for development of modules that customize the Company's 
proprietary software. 
Referring to an April 23, 2004 CIS interoffice memorandum from William R. Yates, Associate Director for 
Operations, Counsel further notes that since there was no substantial change in circumstances, the director 
was required to make a determination of material error with regard to the prior approved petition or 
acknowledge receipt of new material information that adversely impacts the petitioner's or beneficiary's 
eligibility. Counsel claims that the director was otherwise required by current CIS policy to give deference to 
the subjective determination of prior adjudicators who concluded that the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge and will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. See Memorandum of William R. 
Yates, Associate Director for Operations, USCIS, to Service Center Directors, et al, The SignzJicance of a 
Prior CIS Approval of a Nonimmigrant Petition in the Context of a Subsequent Determination Regarding 
Eligibility for Extension of Petition Validity HQOPRD 7211 1.3 (April 23,2004)("Yates memo"). 
Upon review, the director's decision will be withdrawn and the matter remanded for further consideration and 
entry of a new decision. 
Although the petition will be remanded, the AAO acknowledges counsels claim that the director was required 
by current CIS policy to give deference to the determination of a prior adjudicator who concluded that the 
beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity, 
pursuant to the April 23,2004 Yates memo. Counsel's assertion is not persuasive. It must be emphasized that 
that each nonirnrnigrant petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of 
proof. See 8 C.F.R. 8 103.8(d). In making a determination of statutory eligibility, CIS is limited to the 
information contained in that individual record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. 
 103.2(b)(16)(ii). Despite any 
number of previously approved petitions, CIS does not have any authority to confer an immigration benefit 
when the petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof in a subsequent petition. See section 291 of the Act. 
While CIS approved a petition that had been previously filed on behalf of the beneficiary, the prior approval 
does not preclude CIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on reassessment of beneficiary's 
qualifications. Texas AM Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). If the 
previous nonimmigrant petition was approved based on the same unsupported assertions that are contained in 
the current record, the approval would constitute material and gross error on the part of the director. As 
discussed above, the record as presently constituted fails to establish that the beneficiary possesses knowledge 
or that the U.S. position requires knowledge that meets the regulatory and statutory definitions of 
"specialized knowledge." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 103.2(b)(8) states: 
WAC 04 222 53 176 
Page 8 
If there is evidence of ineligibility in the record, an application or petition shall be denied on 
that basis notwithstanding any lack of required initial evidence . . . . [I]n other instances 
where there is no evidence of ineligibility, and initial evidence or eligibility information is 
missing or the Service finds that the evidence submitted either does not fully establish 
eligibility for the requested benefit or raises underlying questions regarding eligibility, the 
Service shall request the missing initial evidence, and may request additional evidence . . . . 
The director examined the petitioner's evidence and determined that the petitioner had not submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish whether the beneficiary was employed abroad in a position which involved 
specialized knowledge, or to establish that the position offered in the United States requires a person with 
specialized knowledge specific to the petitioner's products or processes. 
However, the record as presently constituted does not contain any evidence of clear ineligibility that would 
justify the director's decision to deny the petition without first requesting additional evidence or issuing a 
notice of intent to deny the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(8); see also Memo. of William R. Yates, 
Associate Director, Operations, USCIS, to Regional Directors, et al, Requests for Evidence (RFE) and Notices 
of Intent to Deny (NOID), HQOPRD 70/2 (February 16,2005). 
Accordingly, as the evidence of record does not directly reflect that the petitioner or beneficiary is ineligible, 
the director should not have denied the petition based on a lack of evidence without first requesting additional 
explanation and documentation. See 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2@)(8); 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(i). The AAO agrees that 
the evidence of record raises underlying questions regarding eligibility. In such an instance, the director 
"shall request the missing initial evidence, and may request additional evidence . . .. " 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2@)(8). 
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. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a detailed description 
of the services to be performed sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. Id. 
When analyzing whether a beneficiary's knowledge rises to the level of specialized, 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. Matter of Colley, 18 
I&N Dec. 117, 120 (Comm. 1981) (citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. 618 (R.C. 1970) and Matter of 
LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 8 16 (R.C. 1971)).' As stated by the Commissioner in Matter of Penner, when 
I 
 Although the cited precedents pre-date the current statutory definition of "specialized knowledge," the AAO 
finds them instructive. As will be discussed, other than deleting the former requirement that specialized 
knowledge had to be "proprietary," the Immigration Act of 1990 did not significantly alter the definition of 
"specialized knowledge" from the prior INS interpretation of 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-1B classification. 
WAC 04 222 53 176 
Page 9 
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." 18 I&N 
Dec. at 52. Rather, the beneficiaries were considered to have unusual duties, skills, 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 slulled labor and the person who is employed primarily 
for his ability to cany out a key process or function which is important or essential to the 
business' operation. 
Id. at 53. 
It should also be noted that the statutory definition of specialized knowledge requires the AAO to make 
comparisons in order to determine what constitutes specialized knowledge. The term "specialized knowledge" 
is not an absolute concept and cannot be clearly defined. As observed in 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 
"[slimply put, specialized knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a plain meaning." 745 F. Supp. 
9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). The Congressional record specifically states that the L-1 category was intended for "key 
personnel." See generally, H.R. Rep. No. 91-851, 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 II 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 economic 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. 
Reviewing the Congressional record, the Commissioner concluded in Matter of Penner that an expansive 
reading of the specialized knowledge provision, such that it would include skilled workers and technicians, is 
not warranted. The Commissioner emphasized that the specialized knowledge worker classification was not 
intended for "all employees with any level of specialized knowledge." Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 53. 
Or, as noted in Matter of Colley, "[mlost employees today are specialists and have been trained and given 
specialized knowledge. However, in view of the House Report, it can not be concluded that all employees 
with specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are eligible for classification as 
intracompany transferees." 18 I&N Dec. 1 17, 1 19 (Comm. 198 1). According to Matter of Penner, "[s]uch a 
conclusion would permit extremely large numbers of persons to qualify for the 'L-I' visa" rather than the 
"key personnel" that Congress specifically intended. 18 I&N Dec. at 53; see also, 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 
15 (concluding that Congress did not intend for the specialized knowledge capacity to extend to all employees 
with specialized knowledge, but rather to "key personnel" and "executives.") 
In this matter, the petitioner has not adequately explained or documented the beneficiary's claimed 
specialized knowledge. The petitioner has provided only a brief and vague description of the beneficiary's 22 
months of employment with the foreign entity that fails to establish what exactly is the beneficiary's 
WAC 04 222 53176 
Page 10 
specialized knowledge or how he gained it. While the AAO is satisfied that the beneficiary been involved in 
the petitioner's RODOPI software projects both in the United States and in Bulgaria, his exact role within 
these projects and the extent of his contribution to the development of the software have not been clarified. 
On appeal, counsel emphasizes that the beneficiary "has advanced knowledge, as compared to his colleagues, 
of how this is used and can be applied in various technology environments" and claims that he has worked on 
product implementations in 50 countries. These statements are not supported by documentary evidence. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sof$ci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
To cure these deficiencies, the petitioner should provide a comprehensive description of all positions held by 
the beneficiary since joining the foreign entity, including all job duties performed, the specific knowledge and 
skills applied in each position, and the foreign entity's requirements for each position. The petitioner should 
also describe all projects to which the beneficiary has been assigned and any special or advanced assignments 
that would help to establish that the beneficiary should be considered "key personnel," as discussed above. 
Further, the AAO notes that the petitioner repeatedly stated that the beneficiary was not able to fully 
participate in the RODOPI development efforts while employed by the foreign entity due to the scarcity of 
certain technologies in Bulgaria, and has also stated that its "core development team" is located in the United 
States. If this is the case, the record suggests that the beneficiary was primarily transferred to the United 
States to gain experience in internet technologies, rather than to apply any existing special knowledge of the 
petitioner's product or any advanced knowledge of the petitioner's processes. The petitioner must establish 
that the beneficiary's position with the foreign entity involved specialized knowledge. Given that the claimed 
specialized knowledge is dependent on the beneficiary's ability to customize the petitioner's product to work 
with the latest internet technologies, the record suggests that he did not obtain such knowledge until 
subsequent to his transfer to the United States entity. 
The petitioner has also failed to distinguish its software from similar software offered by competitors, an 
important distinction, since the software itself appears to be based on common web-enabled database 
technologies. The petitioner should submit additional documentation regarding its RODOPI software and 
explain how it differs from similar products developed by its competitors. Without additional explanation, the 
petitioner has not established that the knowledge required to customize and implement this software would 
require the services of an employee with specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning organization, rather 
than those of an experienced software programmer with a background in internet and database technologies. 
The petitioner should explain how its technologies or processes differ from those used by other companies in 
its industry, and why knowledge needed to perform the duties of the U.S. position could not be easily 
transferred to an experienced programmer with similar experience in the software industry. 
If the beneficiary has undertaken specialized training with the foreign entity, the petitioner should identify the 
type and length of training, the purpose of such training, and evidence, such as course completion certificates 
or other records, to establish that the beneficiary actually completed the training. The petitioner should also 
describe the training program typically completed by similarly employed workers in the foreign organization. 
If all employees receive exactly the same training, mere completion of the training program is insufficient to 
establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is advanced. 
WAC 04 222 53 176 
Page 11 
The record contains no information regarding other similarly employed workers employed by the foreign and 
U.S. entities which would allow CIS to make comparisons between the beneficiary and the remainder of the 
petitioner's and foreign entity's workforce. The petitioner should identify the total number of workers 
employed at the location where the beneficiary worked, the number of workers employed in the same or 
similar roles, and provide an organizational chart for the foreign entity that depicts the beneficiary's previous 
position. As noted above, the petitioner has stated that the beneficiary's knowledge is more advanced than 
that of his colleagues, but did not provide documentary evidence to support this statement. The petitioner 
should also further describe the staffing of the United States entity and provide an organizational chart. If the 
petitioner employs other workers in the position to be filled by the beneficiary or similar positions, it should 
describe how the beneficiary's duties will differ from those of the other employees, and describe the 
educational and professional background of any similarly employed worker. Again, given that the petitioner 
has stated that the "core development" of the RODOPI product is performed in the United States, it is unclear 
based on the current record how the beneficiary was selected from the foreign entity based on his specialized 
or advanced knowledge of this product. 
The lack of evidence in the record as presently constituted makes it impossible to classify the beneficiary's 
knowledge of the petitioner's technology and processes as advanced, and precludes a finding that the 
beneficiary's role is "of crucial importance" to the organization. Although the knowledge need not be 
narrowly held within an organization in order to be specialized knowledge, the L-1B visa category was not 
created in order to allow the transfer of employees with any degree of knowledge of a company's products. 
As the petitioner did not have sufficient notice of the deficiencies in its evidence, the petition will be 
remanded, and the petitioner shall be given the opportunity to submit additional evidence in order to establish 
the beneficiary's specialized knowledge qualifications. 
Another issue not addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established the claimed affiliate 
relationship between the petitioner and the foreign entity. The petitioner claims that an individual, Lilian 
Vachovsky, owns 99.7 percent of the foreign entity and 52 percent of the U.S. entity. With respect to the 
ownership of the U.S. entity, the petitioner has submitted its stock certificates number 7 issuing 2,400,000 
shares to Ivan Vachovsky and stock certificate number 8 issuing 2,600,000 shares to Lilian Vachovsky. Both 
certificates were dated June 7, 2000 and indicate on their face that the company is authorized to issue 100,000 
shares. The petitioner did not provide copies of stock certificates numbers one through six, or its stock 
transfer ledger. The petitioner provided a translated document dated December 28, 2002, identifying the 
Lilian Vachovsky as the majority owner of the foreign entity. However, the petitioner has also provided its 
audited financial statements for the six-month period ended on June 30, 2003, which includes the following 
information on page 13 as "Note K - Related Party Transaction": "[The petitioner] owns [sic] Abacus Trade, 
LTD., a Bulgarian company, $1 13,889. There is no affiliation between the two companies, but Abacus Trade, 
LTD. is partially owned by Lilian Vachovsky. This note is unsecured but payable on demand." (Emphasis 
added.) This statement suggests that there has been a change in ownership in the foreign entity, such that it is 
no longer majority owned by Ms. Vachovsky. Based on these inconsistencies, the petitioner should be 
instructed to submit definitive evidence of the ownership and control of the foreign and U.S. entities as of the 
date this petition was filed. 
WAC 04 222 53 176 
Page 12 
In this matter, the evidence of record raises underlying questions regarding eligibility. Further evidence is 
required in order to establish that the petitioner and beneficiary meet the requirements for L-1B classification. 
The director is instructed to issue a request for evidence addressing the issues discussed above, and any other 
evidence he deems necessary. 
ORDER: 
 The decision of the director dated August 21, 2004 is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for 
further action and consideration consistent with the above discussion and entry of a new decision.