sustained L-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-L-A-L- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 28,2018 
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 software developer under the L-1B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101 (a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1B 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 possesses specialized knowledge, 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. 
The Director further found that the Beneficiary's assignment to the worksite of an unaffiliated employer 
would not be in compliance the provisions of the L-1 Visa Reform Act, which prohibits L-1 B 
nonimmigrants from providing "labor for hire." 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not conduct a reasoned analysis of the 
evidence it submitted in support of the petition and that she overlooked the Petitioner's explanation 
regarding the Beneficiary's potential off-site employment at client worksites during his stay. 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 101(a)(15)(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 of L-L-A-L- Inc. 
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(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
An individual L-1 B classification petition must be accompanied by evidence that: (1) 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 filing 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 qualify him or her to perform the intended services in the United 
States. 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(3 ). 
II. DISCUSSION 
The primary 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. 
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 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 progress? 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 financial 
software. The Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer are primarily focused on the 
proprietary product, which is described as a "comprehensive and configurable loan 
and lease 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) from 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 
activities related to with from 2011 until 2015. He joined the 
2 
.
Matter of L-L-A-L- Inc. 
Petitioner's Indian affiliate in November 2015, where he works as a software developer as a part of 
core engineering team. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has special knowledge of the proprietary 
platform based on his nearly six years of experience working on its core development team, during 
which time he has developed new product features that are now major components of the product 
offering. The Petitioner explains that he has a deep knowledge of the core architecture of the 
product 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. 
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 or how the Beneficiary gained it, and did not submit 
supporting evidence of the Beneficiary's work on the 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, the Petitioner 
submitted a 19-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. The Petitioner described in detail specific product 
features and functionalities that the Beneficiary designed and developed to enhance the product, 
research and development and prototype creation projects he completed, implementation tools he 
developed for use by the company's professional services team, and his creation of a proprietary test 
automation framework used to validate custom engineering builds. 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 which lists the Beneficiary's 
duties and contributions in detail, and internal emails which further corroborate some of his 
assignments. 
We find that the totality of the record substantiates the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary is 
deemed an expert with development aspects of the platform gained through his six 
years of progressive experience working exclusively with this product. While he is not the product's 
sole creator or developer, the Petitioner has described contributions that reasonably require him to 
possess far more than mere familiarity 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 offered position would require the Beneficiary to apply his special 
knowledge of to continued core engineering development assignments and to client 
implementation projects, as needed, including any assignments that may require his temporary 
assignment to third-party worksites. 
3 
Matter of L-L-A-L- Inc. 
For the reasons discussed, the record 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 ofL-L-A-L- Inc., ID# 998530 (AAO Feb. 28, 2018) 
4