sustained L-1B Case: Mobile Security Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-&D-M-S-A-, INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 25, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a mobile security technology company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a technical project manager and amend his status under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. 1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 10l(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § l 10l(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, that he was employed 
abroad in a capacity that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge, and that he 
would be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director overlooked key evidence and that the denial 
decision was factually flawed, improperly reasoned, and did not apply the preponderance of the 
evidence standard to the case. The Petitioner further asserts that the Director erred by not 
acknowledging a recent decision issued by our office in which we determined that the Beneficiary met 
all eligibility requirements for L-lB classification. 2 
Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
A beneficiary is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to a 
company if the beneficiary 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. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(c)(2)(B). 
1 The Beneficiary was granted an L-1 visa under a blanket L petition and entered the United States to work for the mobile 
security division of the Petitioner's U.S. parent company in 2015. The Petitioner, formerly the mobile security division of 
its parent, was incorporated as a stand-alone company in 2016 and obtained approval of its own blanket L petition. As the 
Beneficiary was last admitted to the United States under the parent company's blanket L petition, the Petitioner filed this 
petition to amend his status and to reflect the Petitioner as his U.S. employer. The Petitioner indicates that there have been 
no changes to his job duties since his initial entry to the United States. 
2 In April 2018, we sustained an appeal of a Vermont Service Center decision denying a previous L-lB petition filed by 
the Petitioner on behalf of the same Beneficiary for the same U.S. position. 
Matter of G-&D-M-S-A-, Inc. 
The Beneficiary in this matter has more than 14 years of progressive experience with the Petitioner's 
international group of companies, including five years as a research & development engineer and five 
years as a senior customer product manager and technical product manager. The Petitioner has submitted 
detailed, consistent, and credible descriptions of his current and prior assignments which show how he 
gained advanced knowledge of the processes and procedures needed to assimilate and integrate the 
Petitioner's proprietary mobile security technology with its clients' platforms and protocols. The 
Petitioner has also explained and documented the Beneficiary's special assignments, which include 
developing and delivering training in his areas of expertise. 
The Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary has 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 Petitioner's operations. Further, the record sufficiently 
demonstrates that both his prior position abroad and his U.S. position require this advanced 
knowledge. 
The Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge, and that he was employed abroad, and will continue to be employed in the 
United States, in a capacity that requires specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofG-&D-M-S-A-, Inc., ID# 3324289 (AAO Apr. 25, 2019) 
2