sustained L-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-S- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 12.2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development finn, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
principal/architect software engineer under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracomrany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(L). 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(L). The L-IB 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 involving 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 submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director ignored critical 
facts in the record and mischaracterized both the Beneficiary's duties and the nature of the claimed 
specialized knowledge. 
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 10l(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 atliliate thereof in a specialized knowledge capacity. !d. 
The law states that 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 ofthe company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). 
.
Matter of C-S- 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)( I )(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 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 \VOrk 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. DISCUSSION 
The sole 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 kno\:vledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to the 
knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the company or the particular industry. 
The Petitioner is an " application analytics and intelligence company that provides cross-layer and 
cross-domain application operations insights irrespective of underlying technology stacks to meet 
the desired business and operational outcomes . ., Its products and services are designed to simplify 
and unit)' IT operations and governance of both traditional and modern applications across multi­
cloud environments. These product offerings include 
and an 
The Petitioner and its foreign subsidiary were both established in 2013. The Petitioner explained 
that the Beneficiary, who has been employed abroad by its subsidiary since 2013 as a 
principal /architect software engineer, has made significant contributions to the development of both 
and throughout his tenure with the company. As a result the Petitioner 
explained that he has acquired a breadth and depth of experience with these products that is 
uncommon within the organization and cannot be gained outside the Petitioner's group. The 
Petitioner provided a detailed description of his duties and his role in the design, development. and 
testing process. Further, the Petitioner established that he gained a depth of knowledge of these 
products based on his work on their architecture and development that could not be readily 
transferred to another employee. 
2 
.
Matter ofC-S- Inc. 
The Petitioner further explained that most product development activities have taken place at the 
foreign subsidiary, and the U.S. team now requires the Beneficiary's expertise as it begins to fully 
implement these flagship products for clients. The Beneficiary is expected to continue to work on 
the development and improvement of these proprietary platforms at the framework and software 
architecture level, based on feedback received from clients. and will primarily perform these 
ongoing product enhancement tasks, rather than working on client projects. 
The Petitioner has made detailed, consistent, and credible claims regarding the Beneficiary's 
specialized knowledge, and 
we find that the totality of the record, including new evidence submitted 
on appeal, substantiates the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary is deemed a design/development 
expert with respect to its core and products. and is not simply familiar vvith 
the use, implementation, and support of these platforms. 
The Beneficiary's past employment abroad, and his intended employment in the United States, has 
been and will be focused on continued development of and and therefore. 
the Petitioner has established that specialized knowledge has been, and continues to be. integral to 
the Beneficiary's employment with the Petitioner and its foreign subsidiary. The record of 
proceeding now 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 of C-S- Inc., ID# 701925 (AAO Oct. 12, 20 17) 
3