dismissed L-1B Case: Architectural Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12237994 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 17, 2020 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, a company providing architectural engineering services, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a job captain in the United States under the L-lB nonimrnigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that: 1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity; 2) the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the intended services in the United States; and 3) the proposed U.S. 
position would involve specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary holds "unique and in-depth" knowledge of the 
company's "checking techniques and managerial systems" used by the company's job captains to 
complete complex curtain wall design and fabrication projects for clients. The Petitioner states that 
the Beneficiary's knowledge can only be gained within the company and emphasizes the Director 
acknowledged that it is "unique ." The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary is one of only a handful 
of job captains working for the foreign employer holding her level of knowledge of the company's 
processes and procedures. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(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 specialized knowledge capacity. Id. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner indicated that it is a "world leader in design services for state-of-the-art building exterior 
systems," noting that it employs "over 100 desirn professionals" performing design engineering and 
consulting on "aluminum and glass I systems, stone veneer systems, architectural pre-cast 
concrete, EIFS systems, and stucco finishes." The Petitioner stated that "thd I business is 
very specialized" and "there are very few companies that provide [its] types of services." It further 
explained that it and its worldwide affiliates are used "as an overflow resource to keep up with [client] 
design and engineering demand." It noted that its "clients' factories can usually produce more material 
than their in-house staff can design and engineer" thus necessitating its professional services. 
The Petitioner emphasized that it struggles to identify and hire qualified! I technicians in the 
United States, indicating that it currently has ten position openings. The Petitioner stated that "it 
generally takes 6 to 10 years of on-the-job training for a recent graduate to rise to the level of Job 
Captain" and manage projects, the Beneficiary's asserted position abroad since November 2018 1 and 
proposed position in the United States. It further indicated that its subsidiary company in the Philippines 
serves as "an invaluable talent source" employing 95 professionals as well as approximately 16 job 
captains. It asserted that the Beneficiary was chosen for transfer to the United States as a job captain 
"based on her extensive specialized knowledge of [ the company's] I I design and drawing 
procedures." It also explained that the Beneficiary is "hard working" and pointed to her "project 
management skills and experience." The Petitioner explained that its U.S. staff is "overloaded" and that 
it requires additional job captains "which are Junior Project Managers in simple terms." 
In addition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary is "primarily responsible for leading and supervising 
4 degreed CAD Technicians, and planning, executed and coordinating large and complex drafting 
projects," more specifically producing project fabrication/shop drawings. It indicated the Beneficiary 
would supervise three CAD technicians in the United States when transferred. The Petitioner explained 
that the Beneficiary was responsible for "the comprehensive supervision and in-depth review of all 
drawings prepared by CAD Technicians ... prior to release [to clients]." It further listed the company's 
typical "Shop Drawings' Checking Procedures" and "Fabrication Drawings' Checking Procedures"," 
noting that the Beneficiary was an expert in these procedures. 
The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary devoted her time to project coordination, supervising and 
coordinating the work of her subordinate CAD technicians, communicating with outside architects, 
erectors, developers, and clients, delivering final construction drawings, resolving problems, and 
maintaining "full end-to-end project management responsibility." It also listed "defined processes and 
procedures related to this project coordination and asserted that these are "unique" to the company. The 
Petitioner submitted various screenshots of drawings produced by the Beneficiary and her team, 
including work three primary projects 'l I" "I ~' and '1 I" 
It provided brief descriptions of these assignments and stated that "you can clearly see the level of 
sophistication and specialized knowledge and skill that is needed to carry out this role." 
The Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary "over 13 years of relevant professional employment 
experience" both outside and within the company, including her three years as a "CAD Tech II" and two 
1 The petition was filed on February 18, 2020. 
2 
years as a "CAD Tech III" prior to her promotion to a job captain in November 2018. The Petitioner 
indicated that the Beneficiary holds specialized knowledge of the company's "clearly defined processes 
and procedures for checking shop drawings and fabrication drawings that are unique to [the company]," 
as well as the "project coordination, production and administration processes and procedures." It also 
submitted a table listing the Beneficiary and 11 other job captains working for the foreign employer in 
the Philippines. The table included their educations, years of experience in CAD technical roles, 
experience with the foreign employer, and total industry experience. The Petitioner stated that although 
the Beneficiary had the "least total experience" she was chosen over her colleagues, noting that this 
"speaks volumes to her expertise." The Petitioner also provided other supporting documentation such 
as the Beneficiary's training certificates, drawings she completed and/ or reviewed, her resume and those 
of other job captains working for the foreign employer. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Petitioner operates in a "unique niche" designing and 
engineering "some of the world's most complex fc1cades," and as a result, it "developed .. .in-depth 
checking techniques and management system[s] for their Job Captains." The Petitioner indicates that 
this knowledge is distinct and uncommon in comparison to other similar situated employees in the 
industry. Further, to highlight the Beneficiary's advanced level of knowledge within the company the 
Petitioner states that "only four level one Job Captains at [the foreign employer] have more [company] 
experience than the Beneficiary". 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether she was employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. As a 
threshold matter, if the Beneficiary does not possess specialized knowledge, then her position abroad and 
in the United States would not involve specialized knowledge as necessary to qualify her. 
Under the statute, a beneficiary is considered to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: (1) a 
"special" knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an 
"advanced" level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(c)(2)(B). A petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that 
the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition of specialized 
knowledge. Specialized knowledge is also defined as special 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
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. We cannot make a factual determination regarding a given 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, the nature of the specific industry or field involved, and the 
nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how an employee is able 
to gain specialized knowledge within the organization and explain how and when the individual 
beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
3 
A. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced in comparison to her 
similarly placed colleagues within the company. Determinations concerning "advanced knowledge" 
require review of a beneficiary's knowledge of the petitioning organization's processes and 
procedures. A petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that a given beneficiary has knowledge 
of or expertise in the organization's processes and procedures that is greatly developed or farther 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. Also, as with special knowledge, the 
petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that a beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held 
throughout the particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently established how the Beneficiary's knowledge is greatly developed 
when compared to similarly placed colleagues within the organization. Determining whether 
knowledge is "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of a beneficiary's knowledge against that 
of others. The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing such a favorable comparison. The Petitioner 
emphasizes on appeal that "only four level one Job Captains at [the foreign employer] have more 
[company] experience than the Beneficiary." However, in response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE) it stated that the Beneficiary was chosen for transfer as a job captain in the United States 
despite having the "least total experience" when compared to 11 other job captains within the foreign 
employer. In fact, the Petitioner submitted a comparison chart showing the Beneficiary's experience 
and that of 11 of her fellow job captain colleagues and it reflected that she had 13.5 years of total 
experience, while her colleagues had more overall experience ranging from 14 to 24.5 years. As such, 
the Beneficiary's lack of total experience in comparison to her immediate colleagues leaves uncertainty 
as to its assertion that her knowledge is advanced in comparison. 
Further, the Petitioner stated that foreign employer employed 16 total job captains including the 
Beneficiary, while the provided comparison chart reflected only 11 "level one" job captains. This 
presumably would leave four other senior level two job captains working for the foreign employer. The 
Petitioner also emphasized that the four level one job captains have more experience than the 
Beneficiary; as such, it appears that at least eight job captains within the foreign employer (out of the 15 
outside of the Beneficiary) likely have more knowledge and experience than her, and at least, similar 
knowledge and experience. Given this, it is difficult to discern how the Beneficiary's knowledge can be 
considered greatly developed in comparison. In addition, the Petitioner does not specifically describe 
how the Beneficiary's architectural knowledge and her knowledge of its checking, coordination, and 
production processes and procedures exceeds that of the several job captains working just within the 
foreign employer's organization, all of whom appear to exceed her level of overall experience. 
Furthermore, when analyzing the Beneficiary's asserted specialized knowledge we should consider her 
knowledge in comparison to similarly placed employees within the company as a whole, including her 
prospective U.S. employer. However, the Petitioner provides no indication as to how the Beneficiary's 
knowledge compares to the job captains working in the United States. This lack of comparison is 
noteworthy since the Petitioner's organizational chart reflects that it employs 20 project managers (levels 
one through three) in senior positions overseeing junior level one and level two job captains, as well as 
other CAD technicians at varying levels. Likewise, the Petitioner's organizational chart indicates that it 
4 
also employs ten other job captains in the United States, five of which that are classified as level two job 
captains, positions senior to that of the Beneficiary's 'junior" level job captain position. The Petitioner 
provides no explanation of the knowledge of these U.S. based employees, how their knowledge 
compares to the Beneficiary's, or how her knowledge can be considered greatly advanced in comparison. 
This is a notable oversight given that a great deal of the Petitioner's project managers and job captains 
appear to be working in positions senior to that of the Beneficiary. 
In addition, the Petitioner also stated in a support letter provided with the petition that it employs 290 
employees worldwide (including 100 "design professionals") and lists fourteen other offices throughout 
the United States and the world. However, the Petitioner provides no indication as to how many of these 
employees and "design professionals" work in project manger or job captain positions. Given its stated 
business model and the structure of the Petitioner's organizational chart at its Texas headquarters, it is 
reasonable to conclude that the company's other offices, say in Illinois or Mexico as only two examples, 
also employ senior project managers and job captains, as well as junior level job captains similar to the 
Beneficiary. However, the Petitioner provides no indication how the Beneficiary's knowledge of 
engineering, designing, drawing exterior enclosures, or checking and other project management 
processes and procedures greatly exceeds that of the professionals in its various offices around the world. 
The Petitioner must resolve ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
For instance, the Petitioner emphasizes the Beneficiary's "expert" level knowledge in the company's 
"clearly defined processes and procedures for checking shop drawings and fabrication drawings that are 
unique to [the company]," as well as her knowledge of "project coordination, production and 
administration processes and procedures." However, given the apparent prevalence of project managers 
and job captains within the Petitioner and foreign employer organizational charts, as well as presumably 
within its many other offices around the world, it appears likely that knowledge of its processes and 
procedures would be widely held and understood given their centrally to its provision of professional 
services. The Petitioner did not credibly demonstrate how the Beneficiary's knowledge of these internal 
processes and procedures, apparent checklists for checking drawings and administering client projects, 
are greatly developed in comparison to her colleagues, particularly when she has only worked as a junior 
level job captain for only approximately 16 months as of the date the petition was filed. 
Lastly, we acknowledge that the Petitioner also submitted drawings along with brief technical 
descriptions related to three of the Beneficiary's projects. Likewise, we note the Beneficiary's provided 
training certificates reflecting her completion of several courses and lectures specific her industry, such 
as "Hilti Stud Anchor Introduction" in October 2017 and "EIA for RLAs: An Architect's Guide to 
Environmental Impact Assessment" in August 2019. We agree with the Petitioner that these drawings 
appear to be "sophisticated" and their completion likely requires a great deal of skill and training. 
However, technical complexity or sophistication is not alone sufficient to establish knowledge as 
advanced as many technical positions in various industries require complex knowledge. Further, it is 
common in many professions, particularly those involving complicated technical aspects, for 
professionals to be required to complete training and continuing education in their field. However, the 
Petitioner does not explain how the Beneficiary's completion of the submitted projects, drawings, and 
trainings set her knowledge apart as greatly developed in comparison to her colleagues within the 
company. In fact, it is reasonable to conclude that the Beneficiary's colleagues also work on similar 
5 
technically complex exterior engineering projects, complete and/or review such architectural drawings, 
and attend comparable industry related trainings and lectures. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge. 
B. Special Knowledge 
We will next discuss whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
"special." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
Determining whether a beneficiary has "special knowledge" requires review of a given beneficiary's 
knowledge of how the petitioning organization manufactures, produces, or develops its products, 
services, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. Because "special 
knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its 
application in international markets, a 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. Knowledge that is commonly held throughout 
a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to another is not considered 
special knowledge. 
As noted, the Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that the Petitioner operates in a "unique niche" designing 
and engineering "some of the world's most complex.facades;" and as a result, it "developed .. .in-depth 
checking techniques and management system[s] for their Job Captains." However, the Petitioner 
provides little information on why its knowledge of exterior engineering and internal checking and 
project management processes and procedures should be considered distinct and uncommon within 
the industry. 
For instance, it is not clear whether there are other companies within the company's industry providing 
similar services, and without more detailed explanation, it is reasonable to conclude that there are. In 
fact, the Petitioner indicated that "the I !business is very specialized" and "there are very 
few companies that provide [its] types of services," but it did not explain in detail these companies 
and how the Beneficiary's knowledge of exterior architecture is uncommon in comparison to similar 
architects working for these other companies. We acknowledge the Petitioner contention that it works 
within a "niche" in the industry handling the overflow from larger exterior manufacturers; however, 
this appears to demonstrate that these larger companies also have knowledge of similar engineering 
concepts, including "complex facades," and that they likely have their own internal processes and 
procedures for checking drawings and managing projects. Again, the Petitioner does not indicate how 
the Beneficiary's projects, training, and education make her knowledge distinct or uncommon in 
comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the industry. Merely stating that 
the company has its own internal processes and procedures in checking drawings and managing 
projects and noting that the Beneficiary is an "expert" in them does not demonstrate that her knowledge 
is special within the industry. 
Indeed, without further explanation and evidence, the company's checking and project management 
processes procedures do not appear particularly uncommon, but look to be checklists with steps to be 
6 
taken by its professionals, such as to complete a "comprehensive and thorough checking of preliminary 
shop drawings," coordinate "RFI, drawing discrepancies and errors founds in shop drawings and 
installation procedures," and "final checking, collaboration and organization of all shop drawings for 
client's submission," amongst other similar instructions. Again, the Petitioner does not specifically 
explain why these internal processes and procedures are distinct or uncommon in comparison to the 
greater industry, which appears to include large manufacturers and other similar professional service 
providers; within which, it is reasonable to conclude that other similar professionals likely hold their 
own proprietary knowledge they also use to provide products and services. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's knowledge is "special" as defined 
by the regulations. 
Again, as a threshold matter, if the Beneficiary does not possess specialized knowledge, then her position 
abroad and in the United States would not involve specialized knowledge as necessary to qualify her. For 
the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7