sustained L-1B Case: Cloud Computing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 29, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which provides software support for cloud computing systems, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a software engineer under the L-1 B 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 L-IB 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: (1) possesses specialized knowledge; (2) has been 
employed abroad as a manager or executive, or in a specialized knowledge capacity; and (3) will be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred by not 
taking the nature of the Petitioner's products into account. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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. 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. 
The statute defines specialized knowledge as a special knowledge of the company product and its 
application in international markets or an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of 
the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). Our regulations define 
specialized knowledge as: 
.
Matter of W-. Inc. 
[S]pecial 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). 
An individual L-1 B petition filed on Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, must include 
evidence that the beneficiary's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge, evidence that the beneficiary's prior 
education, training and employment qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the 
United States, and a detailed description of the services to be performed in a specialized knowledge 
capacity in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. DISCUSSION 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the 
United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
The Petitioner has developed a proprietary support platform, called for 
use with cloud 
computing systems that use the operating system. The Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary has been "a leading member of the proprietary project team since its inception" 
and "[h ]e is credited with the design and development of the initial architecture of the product and 
has since been actively developing and leading several essential parts of the project as our Lead 
Backend Developer. " The Petitioner provided supporting evidence regarding the product and 
detailed the Beneficiary's specific contributions to its development. 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner had not shown "that the beneficiary has 
knowledge or experience in the field of information technology that is significantly different from 
that possessed by similarly employed workers in the same industry." The Director stated that the 
Petitioner had not shown that the Beneficiary's knowledge of "rises to the level of special or 
advanced" in comparison to others in his field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
We are not merely personalizing infrastructure to suit our company's 
needs. Instead, our goal is to make operating more user friendly and bring 
dramatic efficiency into the current process . . . . Our company focuses on the 
problems faced and features lacking in the current Cloud computing world. It is 
important to note there are very few companies that are focusing on the operational 
aspects of Clouds . . . . [O]ur company is doing something that no other 
company is doing. 
2 
.
Matter of W-, Inc. 
[The Beneficiary] is building a very unique algorithm to process logs in 
real-time to create alerts for any problems. This has never been done previously for 
Clouds. 
The record demonstrates that the Beneficiary is not simply familiar with one proprietary product in 
competition with other similar products throughout the field. Rather, the Beneficiary continues to 
play an instrumental role in developing a new type of product to fill a previously neglected niche in 
the field of cloud computing. 
To establish that a beneficiary has special knowledge, 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. Here, the Petitioner has 
established that the Beneficiary, as a lead developer of a new technology in the Petitioner's 
particular industry, meets this threshold and possesses special knowledge of the company's product. 
The Beneficiary's past employment abroad, and his intended employment in the United States, has 
been and will be focused on continued development of the service platform, and therefore, 
specialized knowledge has been, and continues to be, integral to the Beneficiary's employment with 
the Petitioner and its foreign subsidiary. The record of proceeding, as supplemented by the 
Petitioner's submission on appeal, now contains sufficient evidence to overcome the basis for the 
Director's decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, and that his 
employment both abroad and in the United States requires specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ~fW-, Inc., ID# 446864 (AAO June 29, 2017)