sustained L-1B Case: Data Analytics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-A- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 19. 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129. PETITION FOR!\ NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner. a data analytics services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
··senior Analyst Consolidated Analytics Portfolio" under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L). 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-IB classification allmvs a corporation or other legal entity (including 
its afliliate 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 has specialized knowledge. that he was employed abroad 
in a position involving specialized knowledge. or that he would be employed in a specialized 
knowledge capacity in the United States. Further. the Director concluded that the evidence 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary's employment at a client location would represent labor for hire as 
defined in the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004. 
On appeaL the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary was involved in the design and development of 
a proprietary framework used to provide services to a major client. The Petitioner contends that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of this proprietary framework represents advanced knowledge when 
compared to his colleagues within the company. In addition. the Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary's assignment to a client location requires him to provide services that require his 
specialized knowledge and does not represent labor for hire as defined by the L-1 Visa Rel(mn Act 
of2004. 
Upon de noro review. we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B 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 f()r 
admission into the United States. Section IOI(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 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 specialized knowledge capacity. !d. 
.
Matter olL-A- Corp. 
A beneficiary is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to 
a company if the beneficiary has a 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. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). 
Specialized knowledge is also defined as 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 classification petition must be accompanied by evidence that: (I) the petitioner 
and the foreign employer of the beneficiary are qualifying organizations; (2) the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a position that was manageriaL executive, or involved specialized knowledge 
for at least one continuous year in the three years preceding the tiling of the petition: (3) the 
beneficiary is coming to work in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer; and ( 4) the beneficiary's prior 
education, training and employment qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the United 
States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The first 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 and its foreign affiliates provide analytic solutions for large multinational 
corporations. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary provides services to for which it 
has been providing "customized data analysis services'' since 2010. The Petitioner states that the 
company has developed a proprietary framework called the · 
which assists clients in measuring the impact of digital marketing campaigns. The 
Petitioner indicated that forecasts and compares trends to help clients understand what 
marketing campaigns are most ideal and ''automatically chooses the right forecasting technique to be 
applied based on the data:' without requiring manual intervention. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary holds advanced knowledge of the framework based 
on his involvement with the ''initial development team:· The Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary was also involved in two major implementation projects for high proJile company 
clients and that he possesses "end-to-end'' knowledge of the framework. The Petitioner 
acknowledged that others have been involved in the development of the framework. but 
indicated that ··rthe Beneficiary] was the only person in the team who worked on this development 
right from its inception to its implementation for different clients:· The Petitioner contends that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of the proprietary framework is advanced in comparison to his 
colleagues and therefore represents specialized knowledge. 
2 
.
Matter of L-A- Corp. 
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, the petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that a beneficiary's knowledge 
is not commonly held throughout the particular industry and cannot be easily imparted hom one 
person to another. 
The Petitioner has made detailed, consistent. and credible claims regarding the Beneficiary's 
knowledge of the company's proprietary framework. The Petitioner provided several detailed 
duty descriptions and explanations of his knowledge, emails ref1ecting his work on 
development. and a credible letter from the client to which he will be assigned. Further. the 
Petitioner submits comparisons of the Beneficiary to his colleagues and subordinates and the 
provided evidence demonstrates that he has been promoted to assistant manager from senior analyst. 
and oversees several professionals. based on his development work. 
In sum, we conclude that the Petitioner has submitted sutlicient evidence to substantiate that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is, more likely than not. advanced compared to his colleagues within the 
company. Further, the Petitioner has demonstrated that, based on the complexity of the company's 
business model. the tools, systems, and processes are highly tailored to the petitioning organization 
and require knowledge that would not be generally found in the industry or readily acquired through 
training. Accordingly, the record of proceeding now contains sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 
the Beneficiary holds specialized knowledge. As such. the Director's decision is withdrawn. 
III. VISA REFORM ACT OF 2004 
As noted, the Director also denied the petition concluding that the Beneficiary's assignment to a 
client location was labor for hire as defined in the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004. 
As added by the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004. section 214( c )(2 )(F) of the Act states: 
An alien who will serve in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with 
respect to an employer for purposes of section I 01 (a)( 15)(L) and will be 
stationed primarily at the worksitc of an employer other than the petitioning 
employer or its affiliate. subsidiary. or parent shall not be eligible for 
classification under section 101(a)(15)(L) if-
(i) the alien will be controlled and supervised principally by such unaftiliatcd 
employer: or 
(ii) the placement of the alien at the worksite of the unaffiliated employer is 
essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire for the unaffiliated 
.
Matter of L-A- Corp. 
employer, rather than a placement in connection with the provision of a 
product or service for which specialized knowledge of the petitioning 
employer is necessary. 
In denying the petition, the Director did not dispute that the Beneficiary would remain under the 
supervision and control of the Petitioner while assigned to the client location. We concur. As such. 
the only remaining issue is whether the Beneticiary's employment would be labor for hire, or 
whether his placement at the client worksite is in connection with the provision of a product or 
service for which his specialized knowledge is required. 
The Director concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary would 
apply specialized knowledge of the petitioning entity during the course of his assignment to the 
client. However, as discussed in the previous section, the Petitioner has credibly established that the 
Beneficiary holds advanced knowledge of the company's proprietary framework and that he 
was involved in its development. In fact, the client to whom the Beneficiary will be assigned 
submits a letter corroborating both the Beneficiary's experience and their need for this specitic 
technology. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary's assignment to the client will not be labor for hire as defined by L-1 Visa Reform Act. 
IV. 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 A.fatter of L-A- ( 'orp., ID# 842906 (AAO Dec. 19. 20 17) 
4