sustained L-1B Case: Technology Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 10,2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a business solution and technology consulting firm, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as a solution architect 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. § 110l(a)(15)(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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he 
was employed abroad and will be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge 
capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a detailed brief and asserts 
that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of its proprietary product and its implementation 
because he conceptualized and led the development of the technology. The Petitioner maintains that 
this specialized knowledge is needed for the offsite employment because the Petitioner will be 
engaged in the initial implementation of the product for a U.S. client. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). Upon reviewing the entire record of proceeding as supplemented by the Petitioner's 
submission on appeal, we conclude that the record now contains sufficient evidence to overcome the 
basis for the Director's decision. 
Specifically, the totality of the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge with respect to the Petitioner's proprietary product and its application in international 
markets. We find that the evidence of record establishes that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad and would be employed in the United States, and assigned to a client worksite, in a position 
requiring this specialized knowledge. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the 
petitioner. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 136; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 
2013). The Petitioner in the instant case has sustained that burden. 
Matter of L- Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of L- Inc., ID# 22136 (AAO Nov. 10, 2016) 
2