dismissed L-1B Case: Aeronautical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7408300 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 13, 2020 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, an aeronautical engineering company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
aircraft fitter artisan in its new office I in the United States under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition on multiple grounds, concluding that 
the Petitioner did not establish that: 1) it had secured sufficient physical premises to house its new 
office, 2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge, 3) the 
Beneficiary was qualified to perform the intended services in the United States, and 4) the 
Beneficiary's proposed position in the United States would involve specialized knowledge. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the 
Petitioner marked Box 1.b. in Part 2, indicating that it would submit a brief and/or additional evidence 
to this office within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal. The record reflects that the Petitioner has 
not submitted a brief or any additional evidence since filing the appeal more than 30 days prior. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part : 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the 
party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal. 
As noted, the Petitioner has not provided a brief or additional evidence in support of the appeal. The 
Petitioner only submitted generic statements in the Form I-290B with respect to each ground for 
dismissal discussed above . For instance, the Petitioner indicated that it had "in fact" established each 
ground for eligibility, that the Director's detenninations were "false," or that it had established each 
element "beyond a preponderance of the evidence." 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which bas been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). 
The Petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as 
a basis for the appeal, but only provided generic statements that do not specifically address why the 
Director's conclusion was in error. For this reason, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
In any event, we agree with the Director's finding that the Beneficiary does not possess specialized 
knowledge. As a threshold matter, if the Petitioner does not establish that the Beneficiary holds 
specialized knowledge, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) cannot conclude 
that his position abroad involved specialized knowledge or that his proposed position in the United 
Stated would involve specialized knowledge. In denying the petition, the Director noted that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge was distinct and uncommon in 
comparison to his colleagues or others similarly employed in the industry. Specifically, the Director 
pointed to the fact that there were over 30 other employees working in the Beneficiary's department 
and that the Petitioner did not contrast his duties and knowledge against these colleagues as necessary 
to set his knowledge apart as greatly advanced within the company or uncommon in the industry. 2 
Further, the Director noted certain discrepancies in the Beneficiary's training and educational history 
that indicated that he more likely than not was not one of the most knowledgeable aircraft mechanics 
working on the Mirage F 1 fighter within the company as claimed. 
It is noteworthy that the Petitioner stated in a letter submitted in response to the Director's request for 
evidence that the Beneficiary had only recently received his "competency card" in October 2018, 
approximately two months prior to the date the petition was filed in December 2018. The Petitioner 
indicated that receipt of this card represented "the point in time when the aircraft mechanic is officially 
determined to be 'competent' in various skills." This statement leaves substantial uncertainty as to its 
assertion that the Beneficiary was a "leading expert" within the company in the repair and maintenance 
of the Mirage Fl fighter. This evidence only further supports the Director's conclusion that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge was not established as greatly developed or further along in progress, 
complexity, and understanding in comparison to other workers in the employer's operations or distinct 
or uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the industry. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
2 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 expe1iise is special or advanced, and that the beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 
2