On January 13, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson refused, Chain-Sys Corp.’s, a Michigan technology company, motion for summary judgment accusing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials of improperly denying an L-1B visa for a programmer from India, saying the agency had a reasonable foundation for its decision. Chain-Sys, which creates software applications, most notably for software giant Oracle Corp., had sought an L-1B visa for its employee, Anbarasan Murugan, a senior project manager and technical specialist at Chain-Sys who had worked for the company in India for eight years. Chain-Sys has been arguing two points. First, the agency was wrong to determine both that Murugan’s knowledge of the company’s proprietary software was not itself specialized knowledge; and second that Chain-Sys hadn’t shown that others employed in the industry couldn’t easily acquire Murugan’s knowledge.
As to the first argument, the judge noted that the fact that a person works with proprietary information or has a high level of technical skill is not enough to establish specialized knowledge under the USCIS’ interpretation of federal immigration law. As to the second argument, the judge said he couldn’t conclude that USCIS “was compelled to find that it would take years to impart Murugan’s knowledge alone on another individual already in the industry.” In general, it is safe to assume that your company’s propriety technology is not commonly held, is complex and is difficult to impart to others. However, this decision shows that when petitioning for an L-1B employee it is still best to demonstrate as many as the factors that show specialized knowledge as possible, even though the presence of one or more of these (or similar) factors is sufficient in some cases to establish that a beneficiary has specialized knowledge.