sustained L-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
File: SRC 04 245 53236 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 JUL 29 2008 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U. S.C. $ 1 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
o ert P. Wiemann, Chief 
c 
winistrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 3 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The director addressed two related, but distinct issues: (1) whether the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge; and (2) whether the beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity in a position involving 
specialized knowledge for at least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
Section 2 14(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 184(c)(2)(B), provides the following: 
For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered to be serving in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien 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. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge as: 
[Slpecial 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 or procedures. 
The nonimmigrant petition was filed on September 16, 2004. In a letter dated September 14, 2004, the 
petitioner indicated that its corporate group has developed "Curam" which is described as "a complete 
proprietary suite of products, consisting of an enterprise framework for unemployment, welfare, social 
security, child welfare, child support, health insurance and workers compensation agencies across the globe." 
The petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed duties as a Senior Technical Consultant as follows: 
In this capacity, [the beneficiary] will serve as a senior technical architect and technical 
advisor with regard to the architecture, design, development, and implementation of Curam, 
our proprietary product suite. The specific duties of the Curam Technical Consultant will 
include the following: 
To assist in the analysis of client requirements, both functional and non-functional, and 
investigate how to implement such requirements using Curam framework. 
To serve as a technical advisor in the definition of components of enterprise architecture 
based upon the Curam framework, and to assist in the definition of a development and 
implementation approach to be used to realize this architecture. The duties in this regard 
will include assistance with the following: (i) development of system architecture and 
component diagrams; (ii) the development of hardware and sofhvare configurations; and 
the development of high-level architectures for correspondence and printing, workflow, 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 4 
integration and migration, auditing and archiving, error handling and validation; and 
other Curam-related architectural topics. 
To serve as technical reference for Curam-related design, development, testing and 
deployment knowledge. 
To develop or assist in the development of project-specific methodology, from 
requirements analysis to design, development, testing, deployment and support. 
To develop Curam design artifacts, including the Curam Rose Mega-model and design 
documents. 
To provide technical direction and advice in the development of Curam coding artifacts, 
including: Java Server code; UIM screen definitions; Message, Code table, and Data 
Manager files; Curam Server, Workstation, Database and network configurations; and 
Unit and System tests. 
To develop or assist in the development of documentation artifacts, including: user 
guides; coding documentation; design documentation; and training courses. 
To assist in the training and education of engineers in the technical issues associated 
with Curam development and implementation. 
The petitioner stated that the requirements for the offered position included a minimum of a bachelor's degree 
in computer science or engineering, a software engineering professional background with "solid knowledge" 
of modem software architectures and design; and "a solid knowledge of the proprietary Curam framework 
and the technical issues and cycles associated with Curam development and implementation." 
The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary would initially be assigned to the "ACCESS" project in Baton 
Rouge, Louisiana, for which the petitioner is partnered with IBM Corporation to develop a custom Curam 
application designed to modernize and enhance systems utilized by the State of Louisiana Department of 
Social Services. The petitioner stated that as the project enters the development cycle, requiring the formation 
of development teams and the commencement of software design and development, the company will require 
the services of a "senior technical resource with an in-depth knowledge of our proprietary Curam framework 
to support the next steps in the development and implementation of this custom Curam system." The 
petitioner emphasized that the Curam product suite "is proprietary to [the petitioner], and to our knowledge, 
[the petitioner] is the only company solely focused on the development of a framework for use by agencies 
furnishing unemployment, welfare and other benefits. " 
The petitioner further stated that the proprietary Curam framework was developed abroad and that the "in- 
depth level of skills and knowledge of our proprietary Curam framework necessary to fill this senior technical 
position in the United States is not available in the United States marketplace." The petitioner indicated that 
' 
the only other employee filling a similar senior technical advisory role on the ACCESS droject was 
transferred from the petitioner's Irish parent company and possesses significant experience with the 
petitioner's products. The petitioner noted that a second senior technical employee is needed to meet the 
project requirements during the development phase. Finally, the petitioner stated that "there is no other United 
States domestic employee, whether within or outside of [the petitioning company] with the in-depth 
knowledge of the Curam framework, necessary to fill this senior technical role." 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 5 
The petitioner's letter also included a summary of the beneficiary's educational and professional background. 
The petitioner has provided evidence that the beneficiary has completed a bachelor's degree in electronics 
engineering and a master of technology degree in industrial electronics, as well as approximately eight years 
of software engineering experience. The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary has been employed by its 
Indian subsidiary since April 2002 as a technical architect, and described his duties as follows: 
During his employment with [the foreign entity], the beneficiary has served as a lead architect 
on two major [company] projects in the United Kingdom: the Disability and Care Services 
project for the government of the United Kingdom; and the Customer Management System 
for the United Kingdom Department of Work and Pensions. The latter was an extensive U.K. 
project involving a staff of 150 employees from [the petitioning organization], IBM, EDS, 
PWC, Valtech and BEA. In addition to these projects in the United Kingdom, [the 
beneficiary] served as a Technical Consultant/Technical Lead for our Singapore Central 
Providence Fund project which involved the development of a prototype . . . using the 
proprietary Curam framework. 
Through his work on these [company] projects abroad, [the beneficiary] has acquired an 
extensive knowledge of the Curam framework, and of the various development cycles 
necessary to effectuate the implementation of custom Curam projects. He is therefore well- 
qualified to furnish technical leadership and expertise as a Senior Technical Consultant on the 
ACCESS project and other custom Curam projects for our North American partners and 
customers. 
In a cover letter dated September 14, 2004, counsel for the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary possesses 
"proprietary, unique and advanced knowledge of the employer's complex technology," and reiterated that the 
petitioner's technology is unique and is not produced by other companies in the United States or even 
worldwide. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner provided copies of the beneficiary's university diplomas and a 
detailed resume, which lists his computer systems experience in various programming languages, web 
technologies, objects and methodologies, quality assurance, design tools, databases, operating systems and 
tools, as well as a summary of "corporate training" he has received. The resume also includes more detailed 
descriptions of the beneficiary's duties within the above-referenced projects mentioned in the petitioner's 
letter. As the beneficiary's resume is part of the record, the detailed project descriptions will not be repeated 
here. The beneficiary indicates that he is "skilled in Java Development Kit, Java Servlet Development Kit 
(JSDK), Forte for Java (SynerJ) and J2EE Application Environment, XML application development using 
 . 
Simple API for XML (SAX), and programming using C, C++, Java and Tool. 
The petitioner also provided a copy of a questionnaire completed by the beneficiary in which he further 
discussed the staffing on each of his assigned projects with the foreign entity. His longest project assignment, 
which lasted from June 2002 through April 2004, was as a lead technical architect on a project with more than 
150 employees, including a total of 20 lead technical architects, 20 business analysts, two account managers, 
five project managers, five database administrators, five deployment team members, ten lead developers, forty 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 6 
developers, 60 testing/quality team members, and ten user training team members. The beneficiary indicated 
that he served as the "single point contact" for all the staff in the project for any technical issues with respect 
to Curam framework, developed solutions using Curam, and made changes to the Curam framework. 
The petitioner also submitted additional background information on the project to which the beneficiary will 
be assigned, and explained that it does not currently have any U.S. technical consultants who are prepared to 
undertake the role of senior technical consultant within the timeframe required by the ACCESS project. The 
petitioner further explained the following with respect to the IBM employees assigned to the project: 
IBM employees simply do not have the in-depth, specialist technical knowledge and 
experience of the Curarn functional and technical frameworks to assure the customer of best 
practice, quality assured deliverables using Curam. Most IBM employees should possess 
basic Curam Technical Certification (called Curam Certified Developer), which provides a 
basic level of competence in the Curam Development environment, but does not make them 
Curam experts by any means. The engagement model and partnership arrangement with IBM 
allows Curam Software to provide differentiated, high-value Curam technical expertise to the 
IBM project team, based on the reality that Curam staff know the most about the Curam 
product. 
The petitioner further explained the complexities of the Curam framework as follows: 
While new staff (and indeed partner staff) can be reasonably expected to have some of the 
essential skills required in the areas of System Sofhvare & Technologies (including 
Java/JZEE/XML) for the relevant TADG role, the key Curam technical capability challenges 
fall into two distinct categories: 
Capability within the Curarn Functional Framework, that is, the ability to understand, 
navigate and make informed decisions on the set of Curam functional components (and 
their interactions) which support modern Social Services service delivery in the context 
of the Curam implementation for that customer; in summary 'the horizontal business 
functions;' 
Capability within the Curam Technical Framework, that is, deep proficiency and 
competence in those technical components of Curam which support the Functional 
Framework as well as the Curam development and deployment environment, in 
summary, 'the vertical technical services.' 
It is critical that a Senior Technical Consultant have the background in Curam development 
and implementation to provide the customer best practice, cost-effective, quality assured 
implementation of Curam. 
The director issued a request for additional evidence on September 27, 2004, advising the petitioner that the 
evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the knowledge possessed by the beneficiary is 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 7 
specialized. The director observed that the evidence did not establish that the beneficiary's duties involve 
knowledge or expertise beyond what is commonly held in his field. The director also noted that the 
beneficiary has been and will be performing duties similar to those he has performed with other companies 
outside the petitioner's group. Accordingly, the director instructed the petitioner that it must provide evidence 
' 
that the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy or distinguished by some unusual quality and not 
generally known by practitioners in the field. The director further instructed that the evidence must also 
establish that the beneficiary's knowledge of the processes and procedures of your company is apart from the 
elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others within the company. Specifically, the director requested 
the following: 
Submit evidence relating to the unique methodologies, tools, programs, and/or 
applications that your company uses. . . . Please describe in detail how these are 
different from the methodologies, tools, programs and/or applications used by other 
companies. 
Explain, in more detail, exactly what is the equipment, system, product, technique or 
service of which the beneficiary of this petition has specialized knowledge, and 
indicate if it is used or produced by other employers in the United States and abroad. 
Please submit a record - as opposed to merely a letter - from your human resources 
department detailing the manner in which the beneficiary has gained hisher 
specialized knowledge. Documentation should indicate the pertinent training courses in 
which the beneficiary has been enrolled while working for your company, as well as 
the duration of the courses, the number of hours spent taking the courses each day, and 
certificates of completion of these courses. 
Indicate the minimum amount of time required to train an employee to fill the 
proffered position. Specify how many workers are similarly employed by your 
organization. Of these employees, please indicate how many received training 
comparable to the training administered to the beneficiary. 
If the specialized knowledge was attained through the course of regular on-the-job 
experience, please clari@ exactly what knowledge was attained through the 
beneficiary's past employment with the company. For each facet of specialized 
knowledge, please explain how the particular knowledge attained at that particular time 
was different from knowledge attained by individuals in the identical or similar 
position for the company. 
The petitioner responded to the director's request on October 19, 2004. Counsel referenced a 1994 legacy 
Immigration and Naturalization Service Memorandum from the Acting Executive Associate Commissioner, 
noting that it is CIS' long-standing position that the beneficiary's knowledge need not be proprietary or 
unique, only advanced, and that the statute does not require that the advanced knowledge be narrowly held. 
Memorandum from Acting Executive Associate Commissioner, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, Interpretation of Special Knowledge, CO 214L-P (March 9, 1994). (Puleo 
memorandum). Counsel emphasized that in the instant case, "the beneficiary does possess proprietary, unique 
and advanced knowledge of the employer's technology, and of how to implement such technology into large- 
 . 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 8 
scale custom projects for government users." Counsel stated that the petitioner's technology "is proprietary 
and unique, and is not produced by other companies in the United States or even worldwide." 
In a letter dated October 15, 2004, the petitioner provided the following additional information regarding its 
products: 
The Curam framework is technologically complex, developed after many years of research 
and development by both human services and engineering professionals abroad. Curam is 
underpinned by a modem, multi-tier open, scalable and standards-based technical architecture 
to enable government and other agencies to implement flexible, robust, secure and scalable 
solutions. Curam's flexibility addresses the application architecture, business architecture, 
technical architecture and the development and runtime environments. Curam supports a 
range of RDBMSs, Operating Systems and Middleware products. Because Curam uses an 
EJB/J2EE architecture, it supports horizontal and vertical scalability, allowing customers to 
deploy on a wide range of deployment configurations. From a software architecture 
standpoint, Curam follows established design principles, using open standards, to separate 
Presentation, Business Logic and Persistence layers. From a development perspective, Curam 
application source code is provided to ensure maximum flexibility and extensibility. The 
development environment is based on open standards, including XML and Java. From an 
interoperability perspective, Curam-based solutions can be providers and consumers of Web 
services. This means that other applications can communicate with Curam through an open, 
standards-based mechanism. 
The petitioner reiterated that there are no United States domestic employees in the company who can 
perform the duties of a Senior Technical Consultant for the ACCESS project. The petitioner noted that it 
has two Senior Business Consultants assigned to the project, but that such employees lack advanced 
technical knowledge of the Curam technology and of large-scale Curam implementations projects. The 
petitioner further described the beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge training and experience as 
follows: 
First, he has an in-depth knowledge of the Curam technical architecture. As an employee of 
Curam abroad, he has undertaken 400 hours of intense training in the Curam framework and 
has received certification as a Curam Certified Developer, which requires 160 hours of study. 
In addition, [the beneficiary] has approximately two and one-half years of experience as an 
employee of [the foreign entity] abroad, and in this capacity has acquired in-depth and 
intensive experience on major custom Curam projects. He has served as a lead architect on 
two major Curam projects in the United Kingdom: the Disability and Care Services project 
for the government of the United Kingdom; and the Customer Management System for the 
United Kingdom Department of Work and Pensions. The latter was an extensive U.K. project 
involving a staff of 150 employees from [the petitioner], IBM, EDS, PWC, Valtech and BEA. 
In addition to these projects in the United Kingdom, [the beneficiary] served as a Technical 
ConsultantlTechnical Lead for our Singapore Central Providence project, which involved the 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 9 
development of a prototype for the Central Providence Fund using the proprietary Curam 
framework. 
Through his work on these Curam projects abroad, [the beneficiary] has acquired an 
extensive knowledge of the Curam framework, and of the various development cycles 
necessary to effectuate the implementation of large custom Curam projects. He is therefore 
well-qualified to furnish technical leadership and expertise as a Senior Technical Consultant 
on the ACCESS project and other custom Curam projects for our North American partners 
and customers. 
The combination of advanced knowledge of the proprietary Curam product, and the skills 
necessary to apply such knowledge to a large custom Curam projects, are not available within 
the United States domestic workforce, either within or outside of [the petitioning company]. 
Finally, the petitioner stated that it would take "approximately two years to train another worker so that he/she 
possesses the level of proficiency necessary to fill this senior technical advisory role." 
The petitioner also submitted a letter dated October 13, 2004 from Paul Horan, Worldwide Human Resources 
Manager of Curam Software Ltd., which was similar in content to the petitioner's letter. Mr. Horan reiterated 
that "it would take approximately two years of Curam training and 'on-the-job' major Curam project 
experience to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to fill this senior technical and advisory position." 
In support of its response, the petitioner submitted a copy of a certificate issued to the beneficiary confirming 
that he is a "Curarn Certified Developer." According to information attached to the certificate, a "Curam 
Certified Developer" is considered to have basic technical proficiency, and such certification can be achieved 
by attended appropriate training courses and self-study of Curam documentation. 
The director denied the petition on November 3, 2004, concluding that the petitioner had failed to establish 
that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, that he was employed by the foreign entity in a position 
involving specialized knowledge, or that he would be employed in a capacity requiring specialized 
knowledge. The director acknowledged the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary received a total of 14 weeks 
(560 hours) of training, and the claim that it requires two years for an individual to achieve the beneficiary's 
level of proficiency with the petitioner's products. However, the director determined that the petitioner had 
failed to submit evidence to support these claims, particularly with respect to the beneficiary's training. The 
director observed that the only training certificate submitted appeared to represent that the beneficiary has 
achieved a "basic" level of understanding of Curam develop products. The director noted that the petitioner 
had provided no itemization of training received, and failed to provide the dates of training. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director's decision that the beneficiary does not possess 
the necessary specialized knowledge is "clearly erroneous in that such decision is contraverted by the 
evidence and by the USCIS' own regulations and policy memoranda defining 'specialized knowledge."' 
Counsel emphasizes that the offered position of senior technical consultant is "expected to act as a technical 
reference and technical expert for Curam-related design, development, testing and deployment, with 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 10 
responsibility for serving as a "senior technical architect and technical advisor with regard to the architecture, 
 . 
design, development and implementation of the proprietary Curam product suite." 
Counsel asserts that the "definition of 'specialized knowledge,' and the government's interpretation of the 
term, have undergone significant change over the past fifteen years, first with the passage of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act of 1990 and the implementing regulations, which "were considered to be a liberalization 
of the prior definition and interpretations. Counsel further asserts that the understanding of the meaning of 
specialized knowledge was enhanced by the release of the Puleo memorandum. Counsel emphasizes that 
according to the Puleo memorandum, the petitioner need only establish that the knowledge possessed by the 
' 
beneficiary is "different from that found in the particular industry." Counsel lists several examples from the 
memorandum of situations in which counsel states a beneficiary is "expressly deemed to possess specialized 
knowledge." Counsel emphasizes that according to the Puleo memorandum, the knowledge possessed by the 
beneficiary must be difficult to impart to another individual without significant economic inconvenience to 
the firm, is not generally known, and is of some complexity. 
Counsel further asserts that the petitioner submitted ample probative evidence to establish that its proprietary 
technology is unique to the petitioner, that it is not produced by any other organization, and that it is 
technologically complex. Counsel emphasizes that the petitioner also submitted evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary has an advanced academic background in computer engineering principles, and that he had 
approximately seven years of software engineering experience at the time he joined the foreign entity. 
With respect to the beneficiary's experience gained with the foreign entity, counsel emphasizes that the 
beneficiary has been involved in the analysis and mapping of government and business technical 
requirements, and the development of a scaleable, reliable and management architecture and design for the 
 . 
custom application using the petitioner's proprietary framework. 
 Counsel contends that based on the 
beneficiary's "extensive experience as a lead technical architect and technical advisor with regard to major 
projects involving the customization of the proprietary Curam framework. . . it is apparent that he has much 
more than just a basic knowledge of Curam nomenclature and procedures." Counsel states that it is the 
beneficiary's advanced knowledge of the petitioner's unique technology and processes, rather than his 
knowledge of general software tools or products, that make him qualified for the offered position. Counsel 
asserts that the facts of this case "fits squarely within the illustrations of 'specialized knowledge' set forth in 
the Puleo Memorandum. " 
Counsel further contends that the director placed inappropriate and incorrect emphasis on "Curam 
Certification" as an indicator of whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. Counsel states that 
the petitioner never claimed that the beneficiary's Curam Certification furnishes him with the specialized 
for the United States position. The petitioner submits a memorandum from = 
the petitioning organization's Global Manager of Technical Architecture and Development. Mr. 
onfirms that the Curam Certification was implemented in the first quarter of 2004 as a means of 
recognizing achievement of certain levels of competence by the petitioner's customers and system integrator 
partners. He states that only the Basic Technical Certification (Curam Certified Developer) has been 
implemented to date, thus the beneficiary has achieved the highest level of existing Curam Certification. 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 11 
further states that "achieving competence as a Curam Technical Consultant means acquiring 
in-depth technical knowledge of all components within the Curam Technical Framework," and that a period 
of two years is required "to achieve the goals of the learning challenge for a Curam Technical Consultant." 
He indicates that the learning is achieved primarily through "incremental and sustained experiential usage on 
Curam implementation projects; training and study is by far in the minority of this time." He notes that all 
technical consultants working in the company, as of September 2004, had achieved the CCD certification. He 
further states that new staff members joining the company subsequent to October 2004 are required to 
participate in a formal induction period of ten weeks, during which they are encouraged to sit for CCD 
certification. He noted that a total of 29 staff employed by the petitioner's Systems Integrator Partner 
companies have also achieved the CCD certification. also distinguishes between a Technical 
Consultant and a Senior Technical Consultant, noting that the latter has "general knowledge of IT architecture 
and therefore the ability to define and articulate how Curam fits into a customer's enterprise IT architecture." 
With respect to the director's finding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary possesses the 
required year of employment in a specialized knowledge capacity, counsel asserts that the director's decision 
"inappropriately increases the amount of tenure necessary for L-1 visa classification." Counsel disputes the 
director's interpretation that the regulations require that "the beneficiary must have achieved a specialized 
knowledge level for a year prior to filing a specialized knowledge petition," asserting that such interpretation 
has no basis in law and would essentially increase the minimum employment threshold of one year 
established by the Act. Counsel submits that the beneficiary possesses well over one year of specialized 
experience with the petitioner's proprietary product. 
Counsel further contends that the beneficiary qualifies as an individual with specialized knowledge pursuant 
to the Puleo memorandum, "in that his inability to obtain L-1 status would significantly interfere with [the 
petitioner's] ability to transact business in the United States." Counsel emphasizes that the beneficiary's 
knowledge would be difficult to impart to another individual and notes that the petitioner has confirmed its 
inability to transfer the beneficiary to the United States will render the company unable to furnish senior 
technical consultancy services on the ACCESS and other U.S. projects. 
On review, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary possesses "specialized knowledge" as 
defined in section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(c)(2)(B), and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 
2 1 4.2(1)( 1 )(ii)(D) , 
Preliminarily, regarding the petitioner's claim of specialized knowledge, it must be noted that in making a 
determination as to whether the knowledge possessed by a beneficiary is special or advanced, the AAO relies 
on the statute and regulations, legislative history and prior precedent. Although counsel suggests that CIS is 
bound to base its decision on the above-referenced Puleo memorandum, the memorandum was issued as 
guidance to assist CIS employees in interpreting a term that is not clearly defined in the statute, not as a 
replacement for the statute or the original intentions of Congress in creating the specialized knowledge 
classification, or to overturn prior precedent decisions that continue to prove instructive in adjudicating L- I B 
visa petitions. The AAO will weigh guidance outlined in the policy memorandum accordingly, but not to the 
exclusion of the statutory and regulatory definitions, legislative history or prior precedents. 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 12 
In examining the specialized knowledge capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties and the weight of the evidence supporting any asserted specialized knowledge. 
See 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a detailed description of the services to be 
performed sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. Id. Here, the AAO does not dispute the possibility 
that the beneficiary is a skilled and experienced employee who has been, and would be, a valuable asset to the 
petitioning organization. However, it is appropriate for the AAO to look beyond the stated job duties and 
consider the importance of the beneficiary's knowledge of the business's product or service, management 
operations, or decision-making process. Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. 117, 120 (Comm. 1981) (citing 
Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. 61 8 (R.C. 1970) and Matter of LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 816 (R.C. 1971)).' As 
stated by the Commissioner in Matter of Penner, when considering whether the beneficiaries possessed 
specialized knowledge, "the LeBlanc and Raulin decisions did not find that the occupations inherently 
qualified the beneficiaries for the classifications sought." 18 I&N Dec. at 52. Rather, the beneficiaries were 
considered to have unusual duties, skills, or knowledge beyond that of a skilled worker. 
 Id. 
 The 
Commissioner also provided the following clarification: 
A distinction can be made between a person whose skills and knowledge enable him or her to 
produce a product through physical or skilled labor and the person who is employed primarily 
for his ability to carry out a key process or function which is important or essential to the 
business firm's operation. 
Id. at 53. 
It should be noted that the statutory definition of specialized knowledge requires the AAO to make 
comparisons in order to determine what constitutes specialized knowledge. The term "specialized knowledge" 
is not an absolute concept and cannot be clearly defined. As observed in 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 
"[slimply put, specialized knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a plain meaning." 745 F. Supp. 
9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). The Congressional record specifically states that the L-1 category was intended for "key 
personnel." See generally, H.R. REP. NO. 91-851, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750. The term "key personnel" 
denotes a position within the petitioning company that is "of crucial importance." Webster S II New College 
Dictionary 605 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 2001). In general, all employees can reasonably be considered 
"important" to a petitioner's enterprise. If an employee did not contribute to the overall economic success of 
an enterprise, there would be no rational economic reason to employ that person. An employee of "crucial 
Although the cited precedents pre-date the current statutory definition of "specialized knowledge," the AAO 
finds them instructive. Other than deleting the former requirement that specialized knowledge had to be 
"proprietary," the 1990 Act did not significantly alter the definition of "specialized knowledge" from the prior 
INS interpretation of the term. The 1990 Committee Report does not reject, criticize, or even refer to any 
specific INS regulation or precedent decision interpreting the term. The Committee Report simply states that 
the Committee was recommending a statutory definition because of "[vlarying [i.e., not specifically incorrect] 
interpretations by INS," H.R. Rep. No. 101-723(I), at 69, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6749. Beyond that, the 
Committee Report simply restates the tautology that became section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Id. The AAO 
concludes, therefore, the cited cases, as well as Matter of Penner, remain useful guidance concerning the 
intended scope of the "specialized knowledge" L- 1 B classification. 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 13 
importance" or "key personnel" must rise above the level of the petitioner's average employee. Accordingly, 
based on the definition of "specialized knowledge" and the Congressional record related to that term, the 
AAO must make comparisons not only between the claimed specialized knowledge employee and the general 
labor market, but also between the employee and the remainder of the petitioner's workforce. While it may be 
correct to say that the beneficiary in the instant case is a highly skilled and productive employee, this fact 
alone is not enough to bring the beneficiary to the level of "key personnel." 
Moreover, in Matter of Penner, the Commissioner discussed the legislative intent behind the creation of the 
specialized knowledge category. 18 I&N Dec. 49 (Comm. 1982). The decision noted that the 1970 House 
Report, H.R. REP. NO. 91-85 1, stated that the number of admissions under the L-1 classification "will not be 
large" and that "[tlhe class of persons eligible for such nonimmigrant visas is narrowly drawn and will be 
carefully regulated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service." Id. at 5 1. The decision further noted that 
the House Report was silent on the subject of specialized knowledge, but that during the course of the sub- 
committee hearings on the bill, the Chairman specifically questioned witnesses on the level of skill necessary 
to qualify under the proposed "L" category. In response to the Chairman's questions, various witnesses 
responded that they understood the legislation would allow "high-level people," "experts," individuals with 
"unique" skills, and that it would not include "lower categories" of workers or "skilled craft workers." Matter 
of Penner, 18 I&N at 50 (citing H.R. Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. Comm., Immigration Act of 1970: Hearings 
on H.R. 445,9lSt Cong. 210,218,223,240,248 (November 12, 1969)). 
Reviewing the Congressional record, the Commissioner concluded in Matter of Penner that an expansive 
reading of the specialized knowledge provision, such that it would include skilled workers and technicians, is 
 . 
not warranted. The Commissioner emphasized that the specialized knowledge worker classification was not 
intended for "all employees with any level of specialized knowledge." Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 53. 
Or, as noted in Matter of CoZZey, "[m]ost employees today are specialists and have been trained and given 
specialized knowledge. However, in view of the House Report, it can not be concluded that all employees 
with specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are eligible for classification as 
intracompany transferees." 18 I&N Dec. at 119. According to Matter of Penner, "[s]uch a conclusion would 
permit extremely large numbers of persons to qualify for the 'L-1' visa" rather than the "key personnel" that 
Congress specifically intended. 18 I&N Dec. at 53; see also 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. at 
 . 
15 (concluding that Congress did not intend for the specialized knowledge capacity to extend to all employees 
with specialized knowledge, but rather to "key personnel" and "executives.") 
The above-referenced Puleo memorandum also directs CIS to compare the beneficiary's knowledge to the 
general United States labor market and the petitioner's workforce in order to distinguish between specialized 
and general knowledge. The Executive Associate Commissioner notes in the memorandum that "officers 
adjudicating petitions involving specialized knowledge must ensure that the knowledge possessed by the 
beneficiary is not general knowledge held commonly throughout the industry but that it is truly specialized." 
Puleo memorandum, supra. A comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge to the knowledge possessed by 
others in the field is therefore necessary in order to determine the level of the beneficiary's skills and 
knowledge and to ascertain whether the beneficiary's knowledge is advanced. In other words, absent an 
outside group to which to compare the beneficiary's knowledge, CIS would not be able to "ensure that the 
knowledge possessed by the beneficiary is truly specialized." Id. The analysis for specialized knowledge 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 14 
therefore requires a test of the knowledge possessed by the United States labor market, but does not consider 
whether workers are available in the United States to perform the beneficiary's job duties. 
The petitioner has submitted detailed position descriptions for the beneficiary's current and proposed positions 
which confirm that knowledge of the petitioner's Curam framework is required for both positions. However, 
the petitioner has not documented that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge as defined at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). Although the petitioner repeatedly asserts that the beneficiary's position requires 
specialized knowledge and that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, the petitioner has not adequately articulated any basis to support this claim. The petitioner has failed 
to identify any specialized or advanced body of knowledge which would distinguish the beneficiary's role 
from that of other similarly experienced workers employed by the foreign entity or in the industry at large. 
Going on record without documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Specifics are clearly an important indication of 
whether a beneficiary's duties involve specialized knowledge; otherwise, meeting the definitions would 
simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724, F. Supp. 1103 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905, F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge of the proprietary Curam framework as 
well as an "advanced level of knowledge of [the petitioning organization's] processes and procedures." 
However, despite these assertions, the record does not establish how, exactly, the pertinent software products 
or the petitioner's "processes and procedures" as they relate to this software are so materially different from 
those of other software products that a generally experienced and similarly educated software worker could 
not perform the duties of the position. The petitioner never establishes the difference between the petitioner's 
products, processes, and procedures and other software products, and related processes and procedures, which 
requires noteworthy or uncommon knowledge not possessed generally by similarly educated software 
workers. For example, the petitioner presented a diagram of the "Curam Learning Challenge," which 
indicates that the product is built on technologies not proprietary to the petitioner, including Java, J2EE, 
XML, application servers, IBM Websphere MQ, Websphere Studio Application Developer, DBMS, DB2, 
Oracle, EAI, WSDL/SOAP/UDDI. The petitioner indicates that there are certain areas of knowledge 
proprietary to the Curam product, including a "Curam Development Environment," but it does not further 
elaborate on how these aspects distinguish the applicant's product such that experience with the product alone 
would constitute specialized knowledge. 
Further, the petitioner alleges that the beneficiary's knowledge was acquired through 400 hours of "intense 
training" and over two years of project experience with the foreign entity in the role of technical architect. 
However, the director specifically instructed the petitioner to submit a record detailing all pertinent training 
undertaken by the beneficiary, as well as information regarding the number or workers in the organization 
who are similarly employed and have received similar training. The director also requested that the petitioner 
clarify the specific knowledge obtained through on-the-job experience and how such knowledge differed from 
that of other employees holding the same position within the company. The petitioner failed to submit any 
documentation or explanation regarding the 400 hours of training the beneficiary allegedly received, nor did it 
elaborate regarding the beneficiary's on-the-job experience or attempt to differentiate such experience from 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 15 
that possessed by other employees within the company. It is reasonable for the director to request information 
that will establish the nature of the beneficiary's training and assist him in identieing the claimed specialized 
knowledge, whether the beneficiary possesses the claimed knowledge, the petitioner's requirements for the 
position, and any other information that will enable him to evaluate the claimed specialized knowledge. 
The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her 
discretion, may deem necessary. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(viii). The purpose of the request for evidence is to 
elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the 
time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). 
Overall, the record does not establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is substantially different from the 
knowledge possessed by experienced software professionals with similar experience, or by other employees 
of the petitioning organization. The fact that no other employee possesses very specific knowledge of certain 
aspects of proprietary software does not alone establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is indeed uncommon 
or noteworthy. All employees can be said to possess unique and unparalleled skill sets to some degree; 
however, a skill set that can be imparted to another similarly educated and generally experienced software 
employee without significant economic inconvenience is not "specialized knowledge." Moreover, the 
proprietary or unique qualities of the petitioner's product do not establish that any level of knowledge of this 
software is "specialized." Rather, the petitioner must establish that qualities of the product require this 
employee to have knowledge beyond what is common in the industry. This has not been established in this 
matter. The fact that other professionals may not have very specific, proprietary knowledge regarding the 
petitioner's product, or its implementation, is not relevant to these proceedings if this knowledge gap could be 
closed by the petitioner by simply revealing the information to a newly hired, generally experienced software 
employee. 
Furthermore, while the petitioner implies that the beneficiary gained his purported specialized knowledge 
through the performance of his foreign job duties, the petitioner failed to support this claim with any 
evidence. Once again, going on record without documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190). The record is devoid of evidence establishing, exactly, what 
knowledge was imparted during the performance of these duties and why the purported specialized 
knowledge took this long to impart. Furthermore, although the petitioner states that it requires approximately 
two years for an employee to gain the knowledge required for the offered position in the United States, the 
record shows that the beneficiary assumed the similar position of "Lead Architect" with the foreign entity just 
two months after joining the company, thus raising the question of exactly how much training and experience 
regarding the petitioner's proprietary products is actually required for a senior technical role within the 
company, and how much of the requisite knowledge is simply general knowledge and experience in IT 
architecture related to the petitioner's area of specialization in the information technology field. The 
petitioner offers no explanation for this fundamental inconsistency in the record. It is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to 
explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 16 
Based on the foregoing, the record does not distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge as more advanced than 
the knowledge possessed by other experienced workers employed by the petitioning organization or by 
software workers employed generally in the petitioner's industry segment. As the petitioner has failed to 
document any materially distinct qualities to the beneficiary's knowledge, the petitioner's claims are not 
persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary, while perhaps highly skilled, would be a "key" employee. 
There is no indication that the beneficiary has any knowledge that exceeds that of any other similarly 
experienced professional or that he has received special training in the company's methodologies or processes 
which would separate him from other professionals employed with the petitioning organization or elsewhere. 
It is simply not reasonable to classify this employee as a key employee of crucial importance to the 
organization. 
As the petitioner relies heavily on the Puleo memorandum to support its arguments that the beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge, it is important to note that the memorandum emphasizes that the petitioner 
must substantiate its claims with supporting evidence: 
[Tlhe mere fact that a petitioner alleges that an alien's knowledge is somehow different does 
not, in and of itself, establish that the alien possesses specialized knowledge. The petitioner 
bears the burden of establishing through the submission ofprobative evidence that the alien's 
knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished by some unusual quality and not 
generally known by practitioners in the alien's field of endeavor. Likewise, a petitioner's 
assertion that the alien possesses an advanced level of knowledge of the processes and 
procedures of the company must be supported by evidence describing and setting apart that 
knowledge from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. It is the weight and 
type of evidence which establishes whether or not the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge. 
(Emphasis added.) Puleo memorandum, supra. 
In sum, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's training, work experience or knowledge 
of the petitioner's software framework is more advanced than the knowledge possessed by others employed 
by the petitioner, or by other companies who implement similar software. It is clear that the petitioner 
considers the beneficiary to be an important employee of the organization. The AAO, likewise, does not 
dispute the fact that the beneficiary's knowledge has allowed him to competently perform his job with the 
foreign entity. However, the successful completion of one's job duties does not distinguish the beneficiary as 
"key personnel," nor does it establish employment in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
The legislative history for the term "specialized knowledge" provides ample support for a restrictive 
interpretation of the term. In the present matter, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
should be considered a member of the "narrowly drawn" class of individuals possessing specialized 
knowledge. 
 See 1756, hc. v. Attorney General, supra at 16. 
 The record does not establish that the 
beneficiary has specialized knowledge or that the position offered with the United States entity involves 
specialized knowledge. 
SRC 04 245 53236 
Page 17 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
director's decision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.