sustained L-1B Case: Software Development

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 20, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, 
PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a web application framework developer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a expert under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. \See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The L-
1 B 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses speci;1lized knowledge or that he has been 
employed abroad and will be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
The matter is now"before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in 
concluding that the submitted evidence is insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary holds 
specialized knowledge. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
After reviewing the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has now established by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he has be·en employed abroad and will 
be employed in the United States in a position requiring specialized knowledge. More specifically, 
we found that the Petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary holds advanced knowledge of the 
company's proprietary software and the methods used to integrate the software with mobile devices. 
The totality of the evidence reflected that it is more likely than not that the Beneficiary's knowledge 
is greatly developed and further along in progress, complexity, and understanding when compared to' 
other software developers working for the company . Further, the evidence of record establishes that 
the Beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the Petitioner's industry and could 
not be easily imparted to another employee. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 136; Matter ofOtiend e, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 
Matter of V-, Inc. 
2013 ). Here, that burden has been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofV-, Inc., ID# 32279 (AAO Oct. 20, 2016) 
2