sustained L-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6947621 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 6, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software development company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"Senior Architect- POS" in the United States under the L-lB nonimrnigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service denied the petition concluding that the record did not establish, 
as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary's position abroad involved specialized knowledge, (2) the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the intended services in the United States, (3) the Beneficiary's 
position in the United States would involve specialized knowledge , and (4) the Beneficiary's 
placement at the worksite of an unaffiliated employer would not be labor for hire. 
Upon de nova review , we conclude that the record now contains sufficient evidence to overcome the 
Director's bases for denial. 
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 object detection algorithm (ODA). The Petitioner provided 
several detailed duty descriptions and explanations of the Beneficiary's knowledge and documentation 
substantiating that he developed the Petitioner's ODA and that he will be tasked with a significant 
assignment to implement this unique technology into a major client's point of sale system. Further, 
the submitted evidence credibly establishes that the Beneficiary was involved with the development 
of the company's proprietary ODA, this technology is unique within the industry, and that be is the 
only developer within the company holding his level of knowledge of the algorithm he developed. 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, based on the unique nature of the company's 
ODA, that it would not be generally found in the industry or readily acquired through training. 
Therefore, the totality of the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge. 
Given that the Beneficiary's utilized specialized knowledge abroad in developing the ODA, and that 
he will use this same knowledge of this technology in the United States, we conclude that both his 
position abroad and his proposed position in the United States involve specialized knowledge. 
Furthermore, given that the Beneficiary is an expert in the ODA he developed and a highly educated 
software developer with several years of experience, we also conclude that he is qualified to perform 
the duties of his proposed position. 
Lastly, the Petitioner has also demonstrated that the Beneficiary's work would not be work for hire. 
In denying the petition on this ground, the Director determined that the Petitioner established that the 
Beneficiary would be supervised and controlled by the Petitioner when assigned, on certain occasions, 
to its client's work location. We concur with this determination. However, the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's assignment would involve him utilizing 
the company's specialized knowledge. 
As added by the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004, section 214(c)(2)(F) of the Act states: 
(F) An alien who will serve in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with 
respect to an employer for purposes of section 101 (a)( l 5)(L) and will be stationed 
primarily at the worksite of an employer other than the petitioning employer or 
its affiliate, subsidiary, or parent shall not be eligible for classification under 
section 10l(a)(l5)(L) if-
(i) the alien will be controlled and supervised principally by such unaffiliated 
employer; or 
(ii) the placement of the alien at the worksite of the unaffiliated employer is 
essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire for the unaffiliated 
employer, rather than a placement in connection with the provision of a 
product or service for which specialized knowledge of the petitioning 
employer is necessary. 
The Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary more likely than 
not developed a proprietary ODA and that he was specially chosen for a major client project based on 
his expertise and experience in this technology. It credibly established that the Beneficiary would be 
applying his knowledge of the Petitioner's proprietary ODA and implementing it into a major client's 
point of sale system. As such, the Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary would utilize 
specialized knowledge specific to the Petitioner and its affiliated companies pursuant to his work for 
its client; as such it has established that he would not be employed as labor for hire. 
2 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3