non-precedent decision of the administrative appeals ... - intracompany... · non-precedent...

MATTER OF K-1-, INC.

APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: NOV. I4, 20I6

PETITION: FORM I-I29, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER

The Petitioner, a software development company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a lead consultant under the L-IB nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § IOI(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(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 pet1t10n. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been employed abroad and will be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. The Director further found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has at least one continuous year of full-time employment with its foreign parent company within the three years preceding the filing of the petition.

In its appeal, the Petitioner states that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has previously approved two L-IB visa petitions for the Beneficiary under the same circumstances and is required to give deference to these two prior approvals in reviewing the current matter.

Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

\ To establish eligibility for the L-I nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. Section I 0 I (a )(15)(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 affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. Id.

If the beneficiary will be serving the United States employer in a managerial or executive capacity, a qualified beneficiary may be classified as an L-I A nonimmigrant alien. If a qualified beneficiary

Matter of K-1-, Inc.

will be rendering services in a capacity that involves "specialized knowledge," the beneficiary may be classified as an L-1 B nonimmigrant alien. !d.

Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the statutory definition of specialized knowledge:

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 a 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. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge as:

[S]pecial 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.

1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by:

(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) ofthis section.

(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed.

(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition.

(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 him/her 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.

2

(b)(6)


II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE

The first 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.

A. Evidence ofRecord

The Petitioner filed the Form I-129 on February 9, 2016. The Petitioner states that it is in the business of providing "outsourced off-shore customer software development." It indicated in the Form I-129 that it earned an estimated $400 million in revenue during the previous year and that it employs more than 9000 employees worldwide.

The Petitioner submitted a letter from its director of human resources, specifying that the Beneficiary's foreign employer was and the company was formed following a merger between it and one of the company's largest clients. She indicated that the Beneficiary worked for as a lead consultant from August 2007 until April 2010, worked in the United States in L-IB status from May 2010 until November 2014, and returned to in November 2014.

described the Beneficiary's role as follows:

[The Beneficiary] is a senior technical consultant employed with the [company] and is responsible for executing projects offshore as well as at client sites. He is responsible for providing solutions to software projects as an Oracle Applications expert. He has been involved in Requirement analysis, study of existing systems, create impact analysis, validation of the business functionality and testing. He is familiar with [the company's] which is a proprietary methodology to establish a center of excellence team for Integration work done for its large clients like He has the experience in automating the build and deployment process. He works on common services used for common delivery· and reporting. He has helped document best practices and development guidelines which are deliv~rables for

She further stated that the Beneficiary has "thorough knowledge and experience in [the company's] onsite-offshore processes, methodologies and tools on application software development and maintenance, by virtue of his involvement in software projects at [the company]." Specifically, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary is being transferred to the United States because he has "specialized and advanced knowledge of the of to service client supply chain and Manufacturing IT Application Needs for Common Interfaces."

3

(b)(6)


provided a description of the Beneficiary's current duties, which include understanding client functional requirements, "keeping track of all the Engine business unit CRQs (changes)," tracking these changes in "Remedy as per the process," completing and testing CRQs in "UAT instance," getting approval for CRQs and planning for their implementation, communicating with the client on changes and tool and technical issues, and providing training to the client and "continuous mentoring" for new team members. She also explained that the Beneficiary has "specialized and advanced knowledge of the [company's] method of execution of the

project for our most valuable, oldest and important client, She stated that it would be "unfeasible" to train another worker to this level, noting that it would require at least one year of experience at the foreign employer to complete such training.

With respect to the Beneficiary's proposed position, explained that the client project involves new implementation and support of the production environment across various global locations. She stated that uses a new solution, "Oracle E-Business Suite," which provides "process automation with enterprise integration," "complete automation," and a functionally complete system with over 100 product modules covering all aspects of the client's business. She indicated that the Beneficiary "will perform the System Integration tests and common interfaces roll outs at design and develop applications integrated with the client's external applications, analyze and correct bugs, assist the client in user acceptance testing, and work on the "process discovery· and rationalization phase for the next release." She listed and described several Oracle tools the Beneficiary will utilize when assigned to the project, including Oracle's E-Business Suite or EBS, Oracle Developer Suite (Forms & Reports), Oracle Database llg, ZebraDesigner for XML, and Oracle Workflow Builder.

stated that the project involves activities related to new implementation and supporting the client's production environment across several locations, and would require the Beneficiary to perform the following duties:

• Common Customizations. • Understand business requirement and prepare functional design for new

Customizations. • Upgrade the lli customizations to Oracle R12 versions. • Design and develop interfaces to import the sales order from WEB Systems into

Oracle ERP. • Design and develop interfaces to import the Prices from Legacy system to Oracle

ERP. • Co-ordination with development team, query resolutions and get clear

understanding of the requirement. • Integration testing with Plant users/owners and getting approval to mitigate to

their plant instances. • Work closely with DBA's to roll-out the customizations across the plant

instances.

4

(b)(6)


• Perform customizations setups in the plant instances and run the rounds of testing with different scenarios. '

• Work with Oracle support for resolving critical and transactional issues through SR's.

• Production Instance Setup and provide Infant care support. • Root Cause analysis for critical and repetitive issues faced by Users. • Team co-ordination, communication, internal meetings, and client

communications. • Testing of Reports and Customizations. • Identify the gaps between the current business process and new process and fill

those with the help of Change, Requests in the existing customizations • Maintain same versions of codes all across Plants, performing migrations

wherever necessary. • Deliver products to the client on time with high quality. • Address and fix critical customer defects.

\

She explained that the Beneficiary has "advanced and specialized knowledge in many of these areas, processes and methodologies, the task of harmonizing and optimizing the set processes" and "hands on experience on developing the components and deployment process." indicated that the Beneficiary was chosen for the U.S. position because he has deep understanding of the challenges inherent to the company's onsite and offshore engagements, as well as special and advanced knowledge of Oracle E-Business Suite execution the "[the Petitioner's] way."

The Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's resume which indicated that he holds domain knowledge of business processes, in depth knowledge of Oracle E-business Suite Rll and Rl2, and experience troubleshooting Oracle applications in different busin~ss units. The resume listed the Beneficiary's various projects reflecting that he has been working on common interfaces and with since November 2014. Further, it showed that the Beneficiary had worked on a several Oracle related projects at other locations dating back to August 2007. The resume indicated that prior to this the Beneficiary gained approximately three years of Oracle1 applications implementation and production support experience with unrelated employers. The Petitioner provided a number of certificates and awards the Beneficiary had received while employed with the company.

The Petitioner submitted an untitled organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary, listed as "offshore," is in a division overseen by the "Head, Delivery." This employee is shown as overseeing a "Delivery Manager, Support" who supervises several senior project managers and engagement managers dedicated to assignments, each with their own subordinate project managers, lead consultants, and consultants. The chart did not list the duties, experience, education levels, or salaries for these employees.

Finally, the Petitioner submitted a letter from confirming that the Petitioner provides information technology services, and that due to the complexity of its IT systems, it expects the

5

(b)(6)


Petitioner's computer consulting professionals to possess at least a bachelor's degree or the equivalent in engineering or computer science.

The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the Beneficiary's "in depth knowledge" of the methodologies and procedures of the company did not appear unusual for someone similarly placed in the company. The Director pointed out that the Beneficiary's knowledge appeared to be mainly predicated on knowledge of Oracle technologies rather than the products and processes of the company. Therefore, the Director requested that the Petitioner submit an organizational chart reflecting the job titles, duties, education levels, and salaries for all the members of the Beneficiary's immediate department. The Director asked the Petitioner to specify the products, tools, and processes that make up the Beneficiary's knowledge and the minimum time required to gain his level of knowledge. The Director emphasized that the Petitioner should compare the Beneficiary to other similarly placed colleagues both within and outside the company to demonstrate that his knowledge is advanced or uncommon.

In response, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary' s "in depth knowledge" of the company's methodologies and procedures is the very definition of advanced knowledge. The Petitioner questioned how the Director could discern what knowledge is unusual for a senior technical consultant. The Petitioner indicated that USCIS had previously approved two L-lB visa petitions for the Beneficiary based on the same evidence.

Further, the Petitioner stated the following with respect to the Beneficiary's proposed position in the United States:

The record and the history has sufficient evidence that the position in the USA requires the Beneficiary's specialized and advanced knowledge. Two times in the recent past the USCIS has approved an L-lB petition (to work on this project) on behalf of [the Beneficiary], acknowledging that the US position requires this knowledge. Nothing has changed i.e. the same employer/petitioner, beneficiary, client, project. USCIS has no reason or rationale or deficiency in the record to support this about face-making this arbitrarily issued RFE.

The Petitioner explained that is a "very _large client" and that a large portion of its revenue comes from executing projects for this client. The Petitioner asserted that it only assigns a small number of IT professionals onsite with this client while the majority of the team remains offshore. It indicated that only key personnel with special and advanced knowledge of projects are assigned onsite. The Petitioner further disputed the Director's conclusion that the Beneficiary's knowledge is "typical of a lead consultant," noting that his duties are unique to project execution for and that this knowledge can only be gained through years of working on these projects.

The Petitioner stated the following with respect to the Beneficiary' s level of knowledge m comparison to his colleagues:

6

(b)(6)


Typically less than 1 person per 80 to 100 employees is considered unique or in possession of uncommon specialized knowledge. You will note that any time we have approximately 9000 employees worldwide (of which about half are deployed on US client projects). In the U~A, we have approximately 450+ employees, and including our US based affiliates, we have 750+ employees. Of these total employees, only about 1% to 3% are considered to have knowledge that is "uncommon" (i.e. advanced and specialized).

The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary' s knowledge is derived from his bachelor's degree in electronics and control engineering and his several years of experience working exclusively for

The Petitioner reiterated that this level of knowledge can only be obtained through "at least one year of in-house overseas employment" with the foreign entity "doing these activities."

In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate the Beneficiary' s specialized knowledge, indicating that it did not submit a detailed explanation of the methodologies and technologies used by the Beneficiary and how these are uncommon when compared to those working in similar positions for the company and in the industry at large. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not describe the Oracle systems in which the Beneficiary was versed and how his knowledge of these technologies is considered distinguished, particularly since it is not the Petitioner's proprietary technology. The Director stated that the lack of evidence of special training suggested that another Oracle expert could be readily trained to perform the same duties. She observed that the Petitioner had provided vague and non-specific comparisons of the Beneficiary against others which did not substantiate that his knowledge is advanced or uncommon. Finally, she concluded that given that was the Petitioner' s largest client, it was likely that many others in the organization held the one year of experience required to reach the Beneficiary' s level of knowledge and that such knowledge is "widely proliferated" throughout the organization.

In its appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that it has no flfrther evidence to supplement the record, indicating that USCIS had twice before approved L-1 B petitions for the Beneficiary based on the same evidence. It contends that USCIS is required to give deference to its two prior approvals pursuant to a recently issued policy memorandum, and asserts that the Beneficiary' s duties are "very critical" to its operations.

B. Analysis

Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of the appeal, we conclude the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D).

In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,


376 (AAO 2010). In evalua:ting the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. !d. The Director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true.

In order to establish eligibility, the petitioner must show that the given beneficiary will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The statutory definition of specialized knowledge at Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act is comprised of two equal but distinct subparts. First, an individual is considered to be employed in a capacity involving specialized knowledge if that person "has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets." Second, an individual is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge if that person "has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company." See also 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). A petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the definition. ·

Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and type of evidence which establishes whether or not the benefi~iary actually possesses specialized knowledge. USCIS cannot make a factual determination regarding the beneficiary's specialized knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of the its products and services or processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field involved, and the nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the beneficiary gained such knowledge. 1

As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneficiary's knowledge is "special" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge against that of others. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge, the petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. The ultimate question is whether the petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is advanced or special, and that the beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. In the present case, the Petitioner does not specifically state whether the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge is either special or advanced.

First, we will address the Petitioner's primary assertion on appeal that we are required to give deference to prior approvals relating to the Beneficiary and the same project, the last approval, being in August 2012. In support of this assertion, the Petitioner cites a recent policy memorandum1

issued by USCIS giving guidance on L-IB adjudications, noting that the memorandum states that

USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-IB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda.

8

(b)(6)


USers officers should give deference to the prior approvals of L-IB petitions. The Petitioner contends that we are bound to give deference to these two prior approvals since the current matter involves "the. same underlying facts."

We do not concur with the Petitioner's assessment of the intent of the recently issued policy memorandum. The Petitioner ignores that the memorandum further states that we should reexamine previous approvals where there was a material error with regard to the previous approval or a substantial change in the circumstances since the approval. Further, the aforementioned discussion relates to the extension of a previously approved L-1 B petition. In the current matter, the last L-1 B approval involving the Beneficiary took place more than three years prior to the current petition, and as such it is not an extension, but a new petition. Further, each nonimmigrant petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of proof. In making a determination of statutory eligibility, users is limited to the information contained in that individual record of proceeding. 8 e.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 16)(ii). Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary began his current project assignment in November 2014, well after the more recent prior petition was approved, so the record does not support a claim that the facts are the same as they were in the previous L-1 B filings. As such, it was reasonable to the Director to review the totality of the evidence in the current record in order to determine eligibility, and we will do the same.

Following a review of the evidence, we concur with the Director that the Petitioner has not provided a sufficient explanation of the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge, particularly, the products and processes making up this knowledge.

The Petitioner makes reference to numerous concepts and processes, but does not explain them, including an "automating the build," deployment processes, on-site and offshore processes, methodologies and tools, ' common interfaces" and

common interfaces and rollouts, "optimizing the set processes," and "developing components." In each case, the Petitioner does not describe these concepts or processes in detail or explain how knowledge of them sets the Beneficiary apart from his colleagues both within and outside of the company. The Petitioner indicates that it was not appropriate for the Director to conclude that the Beneficiary's knowledge is common when compared to other lead consultants. However, we note that the burden of proof is on the Petitioner in this matter, and without a proper explanation of the Beneficiary's knowledge, it is difficult to determine how it is advanced or uncommon when compared ·to others. As noted, USe IS cannot make a factual determination regarding the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge if the Petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of its products and services or processes and procedures and the nature of the Beneficiary's knowledge.

Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its application in international markets, the petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular industry.

9

(b)(6)


Here, to the extent the Petitioner describes the Beneficiary's knowledge it is evident that _his knowledge is almost exclusively based in third party Oracle technology and specific client requirements. The Beneficiary's duties, the descriptions of his knowledge, and his resume discuss at length his experitmce with Oracle systems and processes. We note that in order to establish eligibility, the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary either has special knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets or that he has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). Therefore, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary' s knowledge is based in the processes and procedures of the Petitioner or its affiliated companies.

However, there is no indication that the Beneficiary holds specialized knowledge exclusive to the Petitioner. The Petitioner vaguely states that the Beneficiary has knowledge of the Petitioner's

its on-site and offshore processes, methodologies and tools, and the of implementing Oracle products, but does not describe in detail this claimed prop~ietary knowledge or the nor indicate how this knowledge is set apart from that utilized by other similarly placed software development companies who provide similar Oraclebased services.

Further, the Petitioner did not document its asserted tools, such as ICC, or explain how much training and experience is required to master these tools. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary or the Petitioner's other technical employees must attend extensive training sessions in the company's processes and methodologies or intensive training related to their client project assignments. Rather, it appears that the internal systems, tools, and methodologies used to execute client projects are reasonably used company-wide by employees. Without evidence of how the Petitioner's employees _acquire the claimed specialized knowledge, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that knowledge of its processes and methodologies could not be easily imparted to a similarly qualified Oracle professional. Indeed, the Petitioner's resume indicates that he worked for two other software development companies from October 2004 to July 2007, and the duties of these positions are very similar to his assignments with the Petitioner and his foreign employer, suggesting that the Beneficiary's knowledge of Oracle systems and technology would be rather common among those similarly placed in the industry. The Petitioner has not documented any training he received upon joining the foreign entity in order to enable him to perform Oracle-related work for its clients.

We have also reviewed the record to determine if the Petitioner submitted evidence to support its assertion that the Beneficiary has "advanced knowledge" of its processes and procedures. Because "advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, the Petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the 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 emorandum further states that we should' reexamine

10

(b)(6)


The Director emphasized in the RFE that the Petitioner should submit evidence to differentiate the Beneficiary, including specific comparisons between the Beneficiary and his colleagues and a detailed organizational chart showing the duties, education levels, and salaries of his colleagues. However, the Petitioner did not submit this evidence, but merely indicated that two other L-IB visas involving the same Beneficiary and project had been approved by USCIS years before. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). In the absence of this probative evidence, we can only examine that which was submitted, which reveals that the company has over 9000 employees, that the Beneficiary works on a project with the company's largest client, accounting for a large portion of its revenue. The Petitioner, and its Form IOK, indicates that the customization ofOracle systems and processes is a core part of its business. This evidence, as stated by the Director, suggests that there are likely many other developers working for the company with the Beneficiary's level of knowledge of both Oracle technologies and the client.

Without some basis of comparison, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced when compared to his colleagues . or special in comparis.on to that of other experienced Oracle-certified professionals in the industry. In fact, the submitted organizational chart includes others placed in consultant roles with as well. project managers and senior project managers, but the Petitioner provides no information or evidence related to these colleagues, nor does it indicate how the Beneficiary compares or is set apart from them. The Petitioner suggests that the Beneficiary's intimate knowledge ofthe client alone should demonstrate the specialized level of his knowledge. We recognize that the Beneficiary has gained insight into and familiarity with the company's processes and client systems while assigned to work on projects over a period of years. Any client project executed by a technology consulting company is unique in that it reflects the particular technological needs and business requirements of the individual client requesting the consulting services. However, all information technology consultants within the petitioning organization would be familiar with the Petitioner's internal processes and methodologies for carrying out client projects. Similarly, most employees would also possess project-specific knowledge relative to one or more international clients. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that many employees have at least one year of experience working on Oracle projects for

which is cited as the minimum requirement for the Beneficiary's position.

Therefore, we cannot conclude based on the submitted evidence that the Beneficiary's knowledge is greatly developed beyond his colleagues or uncommon in an industry without some specific comparison of his knowledge, training, and experience to that of others.

We have also reviewed the Petitioner's statements that only "1% to 3%" of its 9000 employees worldwide hold specialized knowledge and its claim that the Beneficiary fits within this class of specialized knowledge employees. According to the Petitioner's assertion, certain employees are deemed to have special and advanced knowledge based on their mere incJusion within a certain undefined class. The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary's very assignment to the United States should demonstrate his specialized level of knowledge, noting that only those employees with special or advanced knowledge are transferred to the United States. However, the Petitioner must do more than articulate that a few of its employees hold special and/or advanced knowledge within its

11


overall organization to demonstrate that a particular beneficiary holds specialized knowledge. Merely asserting that the Beneficiary possesses "special" or "advanced" knowledge will not suffice to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of proof. See Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.

Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not submitted probative evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary's combination of professional experience, project assignments, third-party software expertise, and knowledge of the Petitioner's project methodologies has resulted in his possession of knowledge that is distinct or uncommon compared to similarly employed workers in the industry or others within the petitioning company. The record also does not include evidence establishing that the Beneficiary's knowledge is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and understanding that is generally found within the petitioning organization.

We do not doubt that the Beneficiary is a valuable employee who is well-qualified for the offered U:S. position. However, for the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he would be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity with the Petitioner in the United States. See Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed.

III. ONE YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT ABROAD

The next issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary completed at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(iii).

In denying the petition on this ground, the Director indicated that USCIS had requested evidence from the Petitioner to substantiate the Beneficiary's minimum one year of employment abroad, including supporting payroll documentation, but the Petitioner· it did not submit this evidence. In its appeal, the Petitioner does not directly address this ground for dismissal.

Regardless, upon review, we find that the Petitioner has submitted adequate evidence to establish that the Beneficiary has more likely than not been employed with the foreign entity for at least one year out of the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Specifically, the record includes payroll and Indian tax documentation showing his employment with the foreign entity since the fourth quarter of 2014. As such, the Director's decision as to this issue will be withdrawn.

12


IV. CONCLUSION

The petition will be denied and the appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. 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). Here the Petitioner has not met that burden.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter ofK-1-, Inc., ID# 29535 (AAO Nov. 14, 2016)

13

non-precedent decision of the administrative appeals ... - intracompany... · non-precedent...

Documents