sustained L-1B Case: Financial Software

MATTER OF L-L-A-L- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 14, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a financial software and services company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a senior software developer under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § I 0 I (a)(IS)(L), 8 
U .S.C. § 11 01(a)(l5)(L). The L-1 B classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including 
its afTiliate 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 possesses specialized knmvledgc. that he was employed 
abroad in a capacity that was managerial. executive, or involved specialized knowledge for at least 
one year, or that he would be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Beneficiary is eligible for L-1 B classification. 
Upon de novo 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 for 
admission into the United States. Section I 0 I (a)(IS)(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. 
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 2 I4(c)(2)(B) of the Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1 I 84(c)(2)(B). 
.
Malter of L-L-A-L- Inc. 
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 8 classification petition must be accompanied by evidence that: ( 1) the petitioner 
and the foreign employer of the beneficiary are qualifying organizations; (2) the beneticiary 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 qualit)r him or her to pert<.1rm the intended services in the United 
States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. DISCUSSION 
The issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Ben eficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the 
United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
To establish that a beneficiary has special knowledge, a p etitioner 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 company or the particular industry. To 
establish that a beneficiary has advanced knowledge, a petitioner must submit 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 progre ss, complexity, and understanding in comparison to other 
workers in the employer's operations. 
The Petitioner's group of companies develops, sells, installs. and supports proprietary tinancial 
software. The Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer are primarily focused on the 
proprietary product, which is described as a "comprehensive and configurahle loan 
and !ease origination and risk management platform'' used by top financial institutions to automate 
business and commercial lending. The Petitioner's parent company. purchased the 
business (including the product. related assets, and associated services) tfom its prior owner, 
in 2013, and as part of the agreement, employees continued to provide 
software development and support services related to the product for an agreed period of time during 
the transition. The Beneficiary worked as a senior software engineer responsible for development 
and implementation activities related to with from 2010 until 
2015. He joined the Petitioner's lndian affiliate in November 2015. where he works as a senior 
software developer as a part of engineering solutions team. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has special knowledge of the proprietary 
platform based on his seven years of experience working on the product's engineering solutions 
team, during which time he has become an expert in the product's unique integration framework and 
2 
.
Matter of L-L-A-L- Inc. 
developed new product features and enhancements that are now components of the product otlering. 
The Petitioner explains that he has a deep knowledge of the core product, and particularly of its 
integration framework, as a former employee. which makes his knowledge advanced relative to 
his peers who do not have the same length of experience, and which distinguishes his knowledge 
from that of software developers who have not worked on the product throughout its evolution over 
the last seven years. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not distinguish the Beneficiary's knowledge as 
distinct or uncommon in comparison to other software engineers , did not articulate with specificity 
the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, and did not provide evidence that the Beneficiary 
has gained significant, experience. training, and understanding of the Petitioner's proprietary 
product. The Petitioner asserts that the Director ' s decision does not taking into account previously 
submitted evidence which specifically address these concerns. We agree with this assertion. 
The Petitioner has made detailed, consistent. and credible claims regarding the Beneficiary's special 
knowledge of the product. In response to a request for evidence (RFE). the Petitioner 
submitted a 17-page letter in which it described with specificity the nature of the Beneficiary's 
knowledge, how he gained it, and the value of his individual contributions to the business in terms of 
the value added to the product. and to the framework used to integrate the product 
with client systems. The Petitioner described in detail specific product features and functionalities 
that the Beneficiary designed and developed to enhance the product and its integration capabilities, 
as well as his contribution to developing the product's In addition. the Petitioner 
explained how the Beneficiary acquired the knowledge needed to accomplish these tasks. and how 
he applied the special knowledge in his assignments. Further. the Petitioner submitted evidence in 
support of its claims, including a detailed annual performance appraisal and internal emails which 
fmther corroborate some of his assignments. 
We tind that the totality of the record substantiates the Petitioner's claim that the Beneticiary is 
deemed an expert with integration aspects of the platform gained through his seven 
years of progressive experience working exclusively with this product. While he is not the product's 
sole creator or developer. the Petitioner has described value-added contributions to the product that 
reasonably require him to possess far more than mere familiarit y with the proprietary platform. as 
well as a level of knowledge that cannot be considered common in the IT financial services sector or 
easily transferable. The record establishes that the ofTered position would require the Beneficiary to 
apply his special knowledge of to continued engineering solutions assignments and to 
client integration projects. 
For the reasons discussed, the record contains sufficient evidence to overcome the basis for the 
Director's decision . 
Til. 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. 
3 
Matter of L-L-A-L- Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofL-L-A-L-lnc., !D# 958246 (AAO Feb. 14, 2018) 
4