sustained L-1B Case: Data Security Software

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 21, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of data security software, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
senior software engineer under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits additional evidence that the Beneficiary's has developed proprietary technology 
for the company and that his knowledge is far above those similarly placed in his industry. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the record now contains sufficient evidence to overcome the 
sole basis for denial. The submitted evidence reflects that the Beneficiary more likely than not holds 
specialized knowledge of the company's proprietary security applications. 
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 from one 
person to another. 
The Petitioner has provided detailed, consistent, and credible claims regarding the Beneficiary's 
knowledge of the company's proprietary software security application. The Petitioner provided 
several detailed duty descriptions and explanations of his knowledge and documentation 
substantiating that he has created several software upgrades and fixes for the company's proprietary 
security technology which are used widely by the company's other technical experts. Further, the 
submitted evidence credibly establishes that the Beneficiary was involved with the development of 
the company's proprietary technology and submitted evidence that this application is unique within 
Matter of V-S-, Inc. 
the industry and that he is one of only three developers within the company holding his level of 
knowledge. 
In sum, we conclude that the Petitioner has submitted sufficient 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. The totality of the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofV-S-, Inc., ID# 1841593 (AAO Nov. 21, 2018) 
2