U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF K-1-, INC.

APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: FEB. 29, 2016

PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR NONIMMIGRANT WORKER

The Petitioner, a software development company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an Oracle Applications Specialist under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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 evidence of record did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, that she has been employed abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge, and that she 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 Beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge of its methods and processes for project execution and has been assigned to the same customer's projects for years, such that it would be unable to find anyone with her deep knowledge of its processes, procedures and methods for executing these specific projects. The Petitioner states that the evidence already submitted establishes the Beneficiary's eligibility and that it has no additional material to supplement the record.

Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. THE LAW

To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one continuous year within the three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the U.S. temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of the foreign employer.

Matter of K-1-, Inc.

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-1 A nonimmigrant alien. If a qualified beneficiary will be rendering services in a capacity that involves "specialized knowledge," the beneficiary may be classified as an L-IB nonimmigrant alien. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L).

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 ofknowledge 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.

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form I-129 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)

Matter of K-1-, Inc.

II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE

The primary issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and whether she has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the United States, in a position that requires specialized knowledge.

A. Facts

The Petitioner filed the Form I-129 on March 16, 2015. The Petitioner indicated that its parent company, , earned over $400 million in revenue during 2014 and that it employs over 9,000 employees worldwide. The Petitioner stated that it and its affiliates are engaged "in the business of outsourced off-shore custom software development." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary worked for in India from March 2008 until April2014. 1

On the L classification supplement to the Form I-129, the Petitioner stated that theBeneficiary will work at the Indiana worksite of and explained that it provides "IT, ERP, SAP, Oracle and SOX compliances services to as if [the Petitioner] was an in-house IT shop."

In a letter dated March 11, 2015, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad a senior software engineer and emphasized that she has "gained valuable specialized and advanced knowledge of our execution and methodologies for the The Petitioner explained that is our largest client and accounts for a substantial portion of our business." The Petitioner stated that refers to · which it described as "the ERP system for parts and services business," with "all the modules required for typical Manufacturing ERP system, right from employee payroll to complex order management system."

The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's day-to-day responsibilities in India included:

• Requirement analysis and design of the automatic PO creation and routing functionality.

• Develop a code and writing unit and integration test cases. • Expedite a coding and development process by delegating tasks. • Support application's inventory domain for 7 months. • Work on the Projects involving enhancements/development for recent ·

releases.

1 The record shows that the Beneficiary was admitted to the United States in H-4 nonimmigrant status on April 24, 2014 . The Petitioner requested that she be granted a change of nonimmigrant status.

3

(b)(6)

Matter of K-1-, Inc.

The Petitioner emphasized that the Beneficiary has a Bachelor of Engineering degree, as well as specialized and advanced knowledge of and asserted that "it would be unfeasible to train a US worker in the knowledge that [the Beneficiary] possesses, since the knowledge was gained overseas and required at least one year of experience at in India to gain it."

The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will be employed as an Oracle applications specialist in the United States assigned to work onsite at on the upgrade. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "has been picked from all other [foreign employer] employees working on this project, based on our business judgement of her depth and breadth of knowledge." It described her proposed duties as follows:

• Monitor the incident from Distributor business users and distribute them across to the team members as per their knowledge and availability.

• Provide expert solutions to complex and urgent customer problems with highest accuracy in brisk manner.

• Route the Incidents to specific groups which are not under the scope. • Address the customer issues/problems using Incident Management tool - Remedy by

acknowledging the incident. • Conduct the meeting with customer to understand the issue/problem in detail to

provide the best resolution. • Cooperate with team members for quicker query resolution of customer queries with

first attempt. • Cooperate with the third party vendors which have interfaces with application. • Analyze, Integrate and Test application enhancement or bug fix release. • Conduct the client meetings for requirement gathering of new functionality or new

application. • Prepare the understanding document which can be used by developer to understand

the customer requirements.

The Petitioner further described the Beneficiary's knowledge as follows:

[The Beneficiary] is uniquely skilled due to the below defined areas as well as her advanced knowledge on the Manufacturing domain anct sub processes from the past 6+ years, her experience and expertise in conceptualization and designing of a complex system, her proficiency in techno-functional understanding and customization of products, her strong communication skills, it was found desirable that [the Beneficiary] should handle the enhancements of project as she has successfully done in the past as well, and made [the company] gain financial success as well as industry recognition.

The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary has gained her level of knowledge of the "Manufacturing" domain" and associated "new products' conceptualization, design and implementation" based upon her involvement with "Manufacturing projects and creating the

4

(b)(6)

Matter of K-1-, Inc.

technology blueprints as well as executing them." The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary had "gained a few extra miles" compared to others similarly placed in the industry based on her experience on these projects "along with bringing excellent customer testimonials for [the company]." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary has more than six years of experience in the "Manufacturing domain with expertise in Supply chain management functional and business aspects" and "strong technical background and acumen." The Petitioner further stated that the Beneficiary possesses "a very atypical skillset and not very commonly found."

The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary had also completed supply chain management trainings "financially afforded by [the company] only for specialized people in the segment that provide an extra notch and bring level of understanding as well as knowledge to a very different level compared to any other practitioner within the company as well as across the industry." The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary has "rare expertise in [company] proprietary Forms Modernization tool for converting legacy forms applications to cutting edge middleware technology" which helps clients upgrade their technology.

The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary "has in depth in and out knowledge on [company] proprietary tools being used to develop and build next generation business applications" making her "distinct from most of the other practitioners in the industry." The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary "understands the nuances of the business processes in the client organization as well as the issues associated with underlining technology" and that "she has been instrumental in helping client build business friendly modules." The Petitioner further explained that the Beneficiary's "combined Business+ Technology superiority puts her at a distinct position compared to other general Oracle Applications Specialists whose interface in the domain is restricted to their technical knowledge."

The Petitioner further stated that the Beneficiary has worked in varied roles during her six years, including as a software developer, business development lead, and a business analyst. The Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary's positions were "quite distinct roles and thus helped develop her multi­disciplinary skill-set which is quite rare and uncommon in the industry." The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary has learned to communicate in "industry parlance" to translate "pain points" into "product developments," and has experience "helping clients with the product implementations and overcoming associated business or technology challenges." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary "is one of those intellectuals who have the capability of putting her knowledge as well as experience in real application." The Petitioner specified that the Beneficiary had knowledge of a number of the company's proprietary tools, including "Forms modernization tool,"

Likewise, the Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary had knowledge of various other client proprietary tools and systems, including

and

The Petitioner submitted a resume for the Beneficiary detailing the "complex development and support projects" she had worked on for since joining the foreign entity in March 2008, including the upgrade and support, the deployment of a system at the client's

(b)(6)

Matter of K-!-, Inc.

new regional distribution center and "a migration project" within the client's The explanations of these projects reflected that the Beneficiary had worked with various different versions of technologies including , Java, Oracle Forms and Reports, Unix and

Furthermore, the Petitioner provided a list of trainings the Beneficiary had completed during her time with the company including the following courses, along with their timing and duration: the company's "induction" training in 2008 (5 days), Oracle Forms and Reports in 2008 (2 months), interpersonal skills in 2008 (2 days), leadership skills in 2009 (2 days), CMMI and OMS overview in 2005 (2 days), PQA role in 2005 (2 days), advanced Linux programming in 2009 (4 days), test automation and automation tools in 2010 (3 days), defect prevention analyst in 2012 (1 day),

training in 2012 (1 day), and conflict management in 2013 (2 days).

Lastly, the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart which shows the Beneficiary as the Sr. Software Engineer I On-site Coordinator, based on-site in the United States, reporting to a U.S.­based engagement manager. The chart does not show other staff assigned to the same department or project. The Petitioner labeled this as a "foreign organizational chart" dated December 16, 2014.

The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on March 25, 2015, asking that the Petitioner and the foreign employer submit letters explaining: how the knowledge required for the position is different from that required for similar positions in the industry; the products, tools or processes in which the Beneficiary holds specialized knowledge; why another engineer in the field could not perform the Beneficiary's duties; the minimum amount of time required to obtain the Beneficiary's level of knowledge; and the Beneficiary's significant assignments. Further, the Director requested that the Petitioner describe the Beneficiary's knowledge in detail using layman's terms, whether such knowledge can be generally found in the industry, and whether it can be taught only through prior experience in the organization. The Director asked the Petitioner to indicate how long it would take to train another employee to same level, articulate how many others in the company hold equivalent knowledge, and document the Beneficiary's training history.

In a letter dated May 28, 2015, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's "advanced knowledge is that of the [Petitioner's] method and process of project execution at The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary "works closely with management, in understanding, determining and articulating the need for the requirements" and that she "works closely with [foreign employer] HR, delivery team and finance to put together the proposal, which she submits, negotiates and closes." The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary "has developed her technical and analytical skills associated with a Manufacturing domain and SCM over her career at [the foreign employer]."

The Petitioner explained that "her role will be to implement enhancement project and gather requirements for the next release of the project." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "will be responsible for upgrading the existing application to latest technology stack" and "play an important role in plans to acquire and consolidate distribution business." The

(b)(6)

Matter of K-1-, Inc.

Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary is "instrumental" to the current client relationship and that "she is an expert in the field of development and technology operations." The Petitioner provided further detail regarding the Beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States, indicating that she would train the client in "SDLC, SCM and Software Quality Assurance," provide consultancy on redefining processes procedures, and standards, "carry out a pilot implementation of the process," analyze metrics, deploy processes, prepare progress reports, and analyze process tools. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "possesses in depth knowledge of [the company's] Internal Processes, Project management Tools, Software Development Methodologies and [company] strengths." In addition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would "develop and implement enhancement projects by customizing workflows, processes and sub-processes," "use [company] Proprietary Forms modernization tool," and "reinstate broken

processes."

Furthermore, the Petitioner described the nature of the Beneficiary's knowledge as follows:

Typically less than 1 person per 80 to 100 [company] employees is considered unique or in possession of uncommon (i.e. 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 USA, 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 Beneficiary's] specialized and advanced knowledge is derived from 3 sources: (i) the foundation of her knowledge in her education, her 6+ years of experience in this field and the training that she received at [the company]. (ii) this knowledge has become more focused, specialized and advanced as she worked as a Sr. Software Engineer and then as an Oracle Applications Specialist for 6+ years; (iii) she has knowledge that is even more focused and unique (i.e. highly specialized and advanced) since she worked exclusively on this project for our client Thus, she does have specialized and advanced knowledge that is required in the USA.

The Petitioner further indicated that the Beneficiary's knowledge is based on "knowledge of our project execution for the account" and that "this specialized knowledge can only be gained by at least one year of in-house overseas employment, doing these activities and working on this project for

In denying the petition, the Director stated that the Petitioner provided a list of internal or proprietary tools, but did not explain in detail how the Beneficiary used, or would use, these tools. The Director indicated that the Petitioner did not provide the Beneficiary's training history as requested. The Director further stated that the Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate the Beneficiary's actual knowledge or how it is special and advanced relative to others similarly placed in the industry. The

(b)(6)

Matter of K-1-, Inc.

Director found that the evidence reflected that the Beneficiary's knowledge is based in her knowledge of client software and processes and not the Petitioner's own technologies or processes. The Director also emphasized that the Beneficiary's knowledge was significantly based on Oracle software, a technology that is widely used. The Director concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge is substantially different from that held by other similarly employed workers in her field.

On appeal, the Petitioner contends that it submitted details of the Beneficiary's trammg and experience in a previously submitted letter from the foreign employer. The Petitioner states that it would be unable to find another employee with the Beneficiary's level of knowledge of the project, which would cause great economic disruption due to the fact that is its largest customer. The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary is the only employee in the company who has worked with the client for a long period of time, and as a result, no other employees have equivalent knowledge of the client's methods and processes.

B. Analysis

Upon review, the Petitioner's assertions are not persuasive. The record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that she has been employed abroad or would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D).

In order to establish eligibility, the petitioner must show that the individual beneficiary will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. 8 C.F.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.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(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 beneficiary actually possesses specialized knowledge. USCIS cannot make a factual determination regarding a 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.

(b)(6)

Matter of K-1-, Inc.

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.

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.

"Advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures. To establish that a beneficiary has advanced knowledge, a 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 elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others.

In the present case, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that may be deemed "special" or "advanced" under the statutory definition at section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, or that the Beneficiary had been or will be employed in a capacity requiring specialized knowledge.

First, the Petitioner does not sufficiently describe the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge. For instance, the Petitioner indicates numerous times on the record that the Petitioner has special knowledge of the "Manufacturing Domain" and a system utilized by its client. However, the Petitioner does not provide a detailed explanation of this technology in layman's terms. To extent that the Petitioner has explained the technology involved, the record indicates that was built in an environment that involves common third-party technologies such as Oracle, Java and The Petitioner also described as a "typical Manufacturing ERP system." The Petitioner did not identify any aspects about the technologies used or the system itself which would distinguish it from other Oracle ERP systems used to perform the same functions. An Oracle specialist who has worked in the manufacturing domain would reasonably be familiar with similar technologies and the functionalities and modules built into the system.

The Petitioner's attempts to differentiate the Beneficiary's knowledge from that generally held by other Oracle ERP specialists have not been adequately supported. On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that many people are proficient in Oracle ERP systems, but emphasizes that "only those that have worked on the project for a long time would have the required

9

(b)(6)

Matter of K-1-, Inc.

narrow and deep knowledge (i.e. advanced knowledge) of [the company's] method, process and procedure for executing the project at

The Petitioner has not described the company's "method, process and procedure" beyond stating that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of the company's proprietary tools such as "forms modernization tool," productivity management system," and In each case, however, the Petitioner has not articulated the function of these systems or how the Beneficiary used, or will use, these proprietary tools during the course of her duties. The internal systems and tools used for project management are reasonably used company-wide by employees working on client projects and the Petitioner has not specified how much training is needed to become proficient in such tools. Further, the record does not contain evidence that the Beneficiary received any formal training in these tools or systems. The Petitioner did provide a list of eleven trainings the Beneficiary completed while employed with the foreign employer. However, the Petitioner did not articulate how these trainings form the basis of the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge, nor did it explain how these trainings differentiate the Beneficiary from other similarly-employed workers. As noted the training courses she completed were in Oracle technologies, programming and various soft skills, rather than in any company-specific or project-specific areas.

The minimal evidence submitted suggests that the Petitioner's employees are not required to undergo extensive training in the company's processes and methodologies, or specific training related to their project assignments. As the Petitioner has not specified the amount or type of training its technical staff members receive in the company's tools and procedures, it cannot be concluded that its processes are particularly complex or different compared to those utilized by other companies in the industry, or that it would take a significant amount of time to train an experienced Oracle ERP specialist who had no prior experience with the petitioner's family of companies. Based on the evidence submitted, it appears the Petitioner's internal processes and project implementation practices can be readily learned on-the-job by employees who otherwise possess the requisite technical and functional background in the information technology field. The Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's expertise with technologies such as Oracle, combined with her knowledge of its project management processes and tools, constitutes "specialized knowledge" such that her knowledge is distinct or uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular industry.

We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions that the Beneficiary contributed to the company's proprietary technology and helped it gain "industry recognition." However, it did not describe how the Beneficiary contributed to technology development nor did it provide supporting documentation to substantiate this assertion. The Petitioner also indicates that the Beneficiary's knowledge is "atypical," "not commonly found," and "at a very different level," but does not explain this knowledge in detail or specifically describe how she gained knowledge not possessed by other similarly-employed workers, other than stating that she has over six years of experience. The Petitioner did not provide other information that would have assisted in evaluating its claims, such as an organizational chart depicting the other staff who have similar qualifications, work on projects, and use the same internal project management tools and systems.

10

(b)(6)

Matter of K-1-, Inc.

Again, we cannot make a factual determination regarding a beneficiary's specialized knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge describe how such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the beneficiary gained such knowledge. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972) ).

As noted above, 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. Based on the lack of corroborating evidence and explanations, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that could not be transferred to another similarly educated and experienced Oracle ERP specialist.

To the extent that the Petitioner provides more specificity with respect to the Beneficiary's knowledge, this evidence reflects that the Beneficiary's knowledge is based more in third-party and client technology and processes rather than the petitioning company's processes and procedures. As previously noted, the Petitioner states a number of times on the record that the primary basis of the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge is her experience with an Oracle ERP system owned by her company's client. In its initial support letter, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary is set apart based on her knowledge of the client and her understanding of "the nuances of the business processes in the client organization." Further, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary is set apart, since she "worked exclusively on this project for our client and that her value is in her ability to speak their "industry parlance." In short, not only has the Petitioner not specifically described in detail the actual content of the Beneficiary's knowledge, it states numerous times that the basis of her knowledge is her familiarity with its client alone.

The Beneficiary's familiarity with the client's systems and project requirements, while valuable to the Petitioner, cannot form the primary basis of a determination that she possesses specialized knowledge. We acknowledge that any client project executed, by the petitioning company or any other 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 reasonably be familiar with its 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. The fact that a beneficiary possesses very specific experience with a particular international client's project does not establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is indeed special or advanced if the same could be said about the majority of the petitioner's workforce.

Further, the Petitioner repeatedly asserts that work for this client for over ten years, and that

11

is its largest client, that it has performed outsources its IT, ERP, Oracle and SOX

(b)(6)

Matter of K-1-, Inc.

compliance services to the petitioning organization. Therefore, the Petitioner reasonably has many employees assigned to work on projects, and its claim that the Beneficiary is somehow the only employee in the organization currently capable of supporting or upgrading the client's ERP system is simply not supported by the evidence. The Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary has six years of experience with the client, but also states that it would require one year to train someone to her level of knowledge. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the position requires the six years of client-specific experience the Beneficiary is claimed to possess. Further, it is reasonable to conclude that many employees have one year of experience working for this client.

Without a more detailed explanation of the Beneficiary's specific knowledge and how her knowledge compares to others, it has not established that her long history with this client is sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. Further, the while the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary is indispensable to the ongoing project and that it would take a year to train someone to replace her, the Beneficiary had not been employed by the foreign entity for approximately 11 months at the time the petition was filed because she was in the United States in H-4 status. Given the Petitioner's claims that it essentially acts as the client's in-house IT department for its ERP and Oracle systems, it is reasonable to believe that the Petitioner's employees have been responsible for maintaining, supporting and updating the system during the Beneficiary's nearly year-long break in employment.

As discussed previously herein, determining whether a given beneficiary's knowledge is "special" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge against that of others in the petitioning company and/or against others holding comparable positions in the industry. The Petitioner bears the burden of showing that the Beneficiary holds knowledge that is noteworthy or uncommon compared to her colleagues both within or outside the organization or that her knowledge is advanced in relation to those similarly placed.

In the current matter, the Petitioner has provided general comparisons that do not effectively demonstrate that the Beneficiary is uncommon or noteworthy when compared to similarly employed workers both within and outside the organization. For instance, the Petitioner vaguely states that only "1% to 3%" of its 9,000 employees worldwide hold specialized knowledge and suggests that the Beneficiary fits within this class of special employees. According to the Petitioner's assertion, it is suggested that certain employees are deemed special and advanced by their mere mention and inclusion within a specific class. However, the Petitioner must do more than articulate that a few are special and advanced within its overall organization to demonstrate that a particular beneficiary hold specialized knowledge. Merely asserting that the Beneficiary possesses "special" or "advanced" knowledge will not suffice to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof. Although requested by the Director, the Petitioner has not articulated how many of the Beneficiary's team members assigned to the same client and project share the same training and experience, but only provided a vague statement as to the percentage of employees holding specialized knowledge within the overall organization. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for

12

Matter of K-1-, Inc.

purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)).

In addition, the Petitioner does not provide details or supporting evidence to set the Beneficiary apart amongst others similarly placed in the industry. It is not sufficient to merely state that the Beneficiary is uncommon based upon knowledge of a particular client, project, or even by virtue of possessing knowledge of proprietary technology. The Director requested that the Petitioner explain how the Beneficiary's knowledge is different from others in the industry and why the duties of the position could not be performed by a similarly placed professional. However, beyond stating that the Beneficiary held knowledge of client requirements and systems, the Petitioner did not articulate or document how the Beneficiary was significantly differeni from other software development engineers or those working in Oracle based systems.

We do not doubt that the Beneficiary is a valuable employee who is well-qualified for the proposed position in the United States. However, based on the evidence presented the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge and that she has been or would be employed in a capacity involving specialized knowledge. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed.

III. CONCLUSION

The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter of K-1-, Inc., ID# 15781 (AAO Feb. 29, 2016)

13