dismissed L-1B Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-A-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 13,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a design and engineering firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"senior technical designer" under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(lS)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 ( a)(15)(L ). The L-1 B 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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he was employed abroad 
and that he would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a statement asserting that the Director either did not understand or 
did not consider all of the supporting evidence that was previously submitted. The Petitioner also 
resubmits this evidence to support its claims. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 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 10l(a)(l5)(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. 
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 I 01 ( 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 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-A-, Inc. 
knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets or has an 
advanced level ofknowledge of processes and procedures ofthe company. 
Specialized knowledge is further defined 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." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D) 
An L-IB classification petition must be accompanied by evidence establishing that: the beneficiary 
has been employed abroad in a position that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized 
knowledge for at least one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition; the 
beneficiary is coming to work in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer; and, the beneficiary's prior education, 
training and employment qualifies him/her to perform the intended services in the United States. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did 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. 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner is an architecture and design firm with 1,500 employees worldwide and gross annual 
income of $183 million. It seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a senior technical designer in its 
California, office. The Petitione~'s initial evidence included a supporting statement, the 
Petitioner's tax return and annual statement for 2014, the Beneficiary's resume and educational 
credentials - including a bachelor of arts degree in architecture, a postgraduate certificate in 
"architectural professional studies," a postgraduate diploma in architecture, and a postgraduate 
diploma in "architectural and professional studies" - and evidence of the Beneficiary's admission 
into the 
In its supporting statement, the Petitioner indicated that its subsidiary, 
employed the Beneficiary as an architect in its United Kingdom office from 2008 until February 
2015. 1 The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary is "experienced in laboratory and vivarium 
planning" and has "the ability to understand complex requirements of laboratory and bio-safety 
containment projects and ... follow-through with the technical detailing" which is "critical to 
ensuring high quality project delivery for [the company]'s clients." The Petitioner stated that the 
Benefi~iary "was a key component" in delivering the completion of "a complex project requiring 
1 The Petitioner stated that its subsidiary's branch office has since closed. The Beneficiary was employed at an 
unrelated architecture firm at the time of filing in July 2016. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-A-, Inc. 
Category 4 bio-containment - the highest level of bio-safety design - to satisfy security and 
containment requirements for high-consequence animal disease research within a highly interactive 
environment." Although the Petitioner provided a list of projects that the Beneficiary worked on 
during his employment with the former branch office, it did not provide a list of the 
Beneficiary's specific job duties during such employment. 
The Petitioner provided the following list of "[g]eneral duties" the Beneficiary would perform in his 
proposed position at its office: 
• Establishing client and internal meetings and participating in reviews with various 
governing agencies for code compliance; 
• Responsibility for revie\ving architectural documents for sustainable criteria 
compliance and coordinating team review and 
verification of sustainable criteria; 
• Reviewing architectural documents for areas of conflict with all disciplines as 
well as writing/editing architectural specifications; and 
• Leading some projects in a dual management role and providing, on an as needed 
basis, construction contract administration. 
The Petitioner claimed that performance of these job duties for science and technology facilities 
projects requires a bachelor's degree in architecture and 10 years of experience, including experience 
in laboratory and vivarium planning and bio-safety containment design, proficiency in a variety of 
sofhvare that is "used in the field," as well as "strong knowledge" of codes and skills in conceptual 
design and leadership. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary meets these criteria. 
The 
Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) and asked that the Petitioner provide, in part, the 
following: evidence of the Beneficiary's prior training and employment and an explanation of how 
they relate to the claimed specialized knowledge; a more detailed description of the Beneficiary's 
knowledge or expertise; an explanation of why such knowledge is specialized; a comparison of the 
Beneficiary's knowledge to that of other employees and workers in the same field; evidence that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of the foreign entity's operating conditions is not generally found in the 
petitioning organization; the minimum time required to obtain the specialized knowledge, including 
training and any experience gained after training. The Director provided a list of other evidence that 
would assist in establishing that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a letter discussing the Beneficiary's positions with the foreign 
and U.S. organizations as well as his qualifications. With regard to the Beneficiary's former position 
with the foreign employer, the Petitioner stated that he was "one of the few [] employees with the 
specialized knowledge required" for the design and delivery of complex laboratory facilities. The 
Beneficiary was said to have "designed the master plan and sustainability upgrade" without 
incurring extra costs on one project, while managing the design on another project, which involved 
"effectively navigating challenges of team members" located in the United States and China. The 
Petitioner provided the following list of the Beneficiary's job duties in his former position: 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter~~ H-A-, Inc. 
• Providing full design and project leadership; 
• Establishing 
and maintaining client relationships; 
• Attending meetings and providing professional advice and design reviews; 
• Preparing and presenting design and possible options to clients; 
• Design and technical detail development from inception to project completion; 
• Ensuring information (drawings, documents) delivery as per agreed program; 
• Coordinating architectural drawings with consultants/engineering drawings; 
• Ensuring design implementation, on site by the Contractor as per approved 
drawings; 
• Responding to any Requests for Information by the Contractor on site; and 
• Reviewing 
drawings and documents and ensuring design was in compliance with · 
required regulations and codes. 
In discussing the proposed position, the Petitioner restated the prior list of the Beneficiary's general 
job duties, asserting that the Beneficiary would perform those duties within the context of "complex 
laboratory buildings" in the science and technology sector and 
that designing such facilities "is a 
niche market" for which the required skills are "not commonly found in the industry." The 
Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary has been and would be involved in designing specific types 
of facilities that "differ from general architecture buildings in that the foremost concern is creating a 
safe environment" where potentially dangerous scientific experiments can be performed. The 
Petitioner went on to explain that the design process for these types of facilities differs from that of 
general architecture projects in that the former requires "a detailed risk assessment" followed by 
using "a layered approach" to design containment that corresponds to the level of assessed risk. The 
Petitioner claimed that "[i]ncorporating 'design' into projects requiring compliance with complex 
regulations is a rare skill" that requires someone with the Beneficiary's special knowledge of the 
organization's design processes and standards for "complex laboratory facilities." The Petitioner 
described its organization's design process as "highly participatory" and "collaborative" involving 
input from "multidisciplinary design experts to implement best practices from around the world.'' 
The Petitioner further claimed that the Beneficiary's knowledge is specialized because it surpasses 
that of others within the industry and that of "typical designers" within the organization itself The 
Petitioner noted that it took the Beneficiary approximately 15 years to attain his current skill level, 
which involved general architecture design experience gained in the work place and spending 3 
years "shadowing" his former employer's company director, whom the Petitioner described as "a 
leading figure in designing complex science and research buildings at the time." The Petitioner 
claimed that the Beneficiary has "advanced knowledge of complex laboratory design" as compared 
to employees 
within the company as well as individuals within the architecture field and that it 
would "a number of years" to train someone with "an innate talent for techpical design." 
In addition, the Petitioner provided supporting evidence in the form of a company brochure and four 
statements from the Petitioner's director of design, a "retired architect/managing director" who 
worked for the Beneficiary's previous foreign employer, a program director at the 
and the Petitioner's vice president/employment director, respectively. 
4 
Matter of H-A-, Inc. 
The Director denied the petition finding that the Beneficiary's job duties abroad were similar to 
those of a typical architect. The Director also found that Petitioner did not provide evidence to 
distinguish the Beneficiary's knowledge or experience in the field of architecture from that 
possessed by other similarly employed \Vorkers in the same industry. The Director further noted that 
the Beneficiary's educational and professional credentials are commonly held in the field of 
architecture and determined that the Petitioner did not adequately articulate the nature of the 
Beneficiary's specialized knowledge or establish how and when the Beneficiary gained such 
knowledge. She went on to state that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's training 
and experience resulted in specialized knowledge of the organization's tools, processes, and 
methodologies. Finally, with regard to the proposed position, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that its processes and procedures are 
different from those used by senior technical designers at other organizations or that similarly 
employed individuals within the field could not readily acquire the company-specific knowledge. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it met its burden of proof and points to previously submitted 
statements that discussed the Beneficiary's qualifications and listed the "highly complex" projects 
the Beneficiary has worked on. 
B. Analysis 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he 
was employed abroad and would be employ~d in the United States in a specialized knowledge 
capacity as defined in the statute and regulations. 
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." Under the 
statute, a beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: ( l) 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. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and 
type of evidence which establishes whether 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 
such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the 
individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
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 knov,rledge, the 
5 
Matter of H-A-, Inc. 
pehtwner 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 
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 instant matter, while the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has special and advanced 
knowledge. 
Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or 
seryices 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. 
Here, the Petitioner provided statements indicating that the Beneficiary has experience and an in­
depth understanding of the ~omplexities involved in planning bio-satety containment facilities, some 
of which require "the highest level of bio-safety design." The Petitioner also provided a list of job 
duties that the Beneficiary perfonned for the foreign employer as well as a general list of job duties 
the Beneficiary would perform in the United States. However, other than stating that the 
Beneficiary's job duties have been and would be performed within the context of "complex 
laboratory buildings" in the science and technology sector, the Petitioner did not explain how the 
performance of such duties requires knmvledge that w~mld not typically be held or readily acquired 
by an experienced architect in the Petitioner's industry. Although the Petitioner indicated that there 
are additional layers of complexity associated \Vith architectural design for laboratory and related 
facilities, it did not describe the actual knowledge required to perform duties in this field of 
architecture with any specificity, which makes it difficult for us to evaluate the Petitioner's claim 
that performance of the duties requires knowledge not typically held by an architect or technical 
designer. 
We further note that the Petitioner does not state that its organization offers a product or service or 
has equipment or techniques that are distinct or uncommon in comparison to that generally found in 
the field of architecture. Rather, the Petitioner relies heavily on the fact that it operates within a 
"niche market" within the architecture industry in that it specializes in the science and technology 
field. However, this factor alone does not establish that either the Petitioner or the foreign 
organization provides services that are uncommon when compared to architecture design firms that 
are similarly specialized. The Petitioner has not otiered sufficient support for a claim that 
specialization in this field, which involves providing design work for private, government, and 
educational research laboratories and facilities, is so rare that any architects experienced in this field 
should be considered to have specialized knowledge. Likewise, while the Petitioner described the 
Beneficiary's ability to incorporate design into projects that require working w~ithin the limits of 
complicated regulations as "a rare skill," the Petitioner has not established that this skill was derived 
from knowledge of the Petitioner's or the affiliated foreign employer's product, service, equipment, 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-A-, Inc. 
or technique. Rather, the Beneficiary gained his initial experience with science and technology 
projects while working for an unrelated foreign employer. 
On appeal, 
the Petitioner asks us to review evidence that was previously submitted in response to the 
RFE. With regard to the brochure, the information contained therein generally describes 
the design services that the Petitioner provided to the in terms of creating an 
effective bio-containment facility. While the brochure impresses upon the complicated nature of the 
building's design aspects, it does not address the Beneficiary's specific role in the design project or 
establish that the Beneficiary's knowledge is speciaL Page 4 of the brochure lists the various 
individuals comprising the team that worked on the project. Based on the team 
composition, it appears that the Beneficiary's primary focus was on the architectural design aspect, 
given that the team included various engineers, a landscape architect, a building contractor, a 
laboratory planner, a containment specialist, and a project manager, the latter of whom presumably 
coordinated the work of all the team members. While we do not question the value of the 
Beneficiary's contribution to the project, there is no evidence to suggest that specialized knowledge 
was a requirement for his participation. In fact, the Petitioner has claimed that the ability to perform 
laboratory planning and containment-related duties are critical to the Beneficiary's claimed 
specialized knowledge, but this brochure shows that the foreign entity had assigned its specialists in 
each of those areas to the same project. 
The Petitioner's evidence also included statements from individuals who are familiar with the 
Beneficiary's work and his level of expertise. First, we look to the statement from 
the Petitioner's direCtor of design, who stated that he worked with the Beneficiary on a 
project and described him as "one of the world's foremost architectural designers working in 
biocontainments [sic], with technical design skills surpassing that typically found in the architecture 
industry." claimed that the Beneficiary used "his specialized knowledge of highly 
complex laboratory and biocontainment design." Despite high praise of the 
Beneficiary's work, his claims do not lead to the conclusion that the Beneficiary's claimed 
knowledge can be characterized as distinct or uncommon in comparison to knowledge generally held 
by other architects who, like the Petitioner, also specialize in the design of facilities in the science 
and technology sector. By own admission, "[t]here is no specific training program 
or curriculum for highly complex laboratory design." As such, it is unclear when and how the 
Beneficiary gained the claimed specialized knowledge ofthe Petitioner's services and techniques. 
The Petitioner also offered a statement from a retired architect and former director 
of an unrelated foreign firm that employed the Beneficiary from 2002 
through 2008. The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary gained his specialized knowledge in 
architectural design for the science and technology sector, in large part, by shadowing 
over a three-year period while employed at stated that specialized in 
designing and managing projects that involved "complex research facilities for the containment of 
[d]angerous [p]athogens." Although stated that the Beneficiary was a senior architect on 
"a team of [a]rchitects and [t]echnicians" and that he was subordinate to in designing 
"[ c ]omplex buildings," did not corroborate the claim that the Beneficiary "shadowed" him 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-A-, Inc. 
during the course of his employment; nor did provide any details as to the specific 
knowledge the Beneficiary gained while serving as his subordinate. His statement does not 
sufficiently describe the Beneficiary's claimed special knowledge or how he gained it. 
The two remaining statements- one from a program director at the and the other 
from the Petitioner's vice president/employment director- similarly lack critical information about 
the Beneficiary's claimed special knowledge, as neither cite to an actual characteristic about the 
Beneficiary's knowledge that would lead us to the understanding that the Beneficiary has special 
knowledge of the Petitioner's design services or a method used to provide those services that is 
somehow distinct or uncommon in comparison to that generally found among architects or designers 
in this science and technology field of architecture. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's education, training, and work experience, the Petitioner provided 
evidence showing that the Beneficiary has a bachelor's deg~ee in architecture, a postgraduate 
certificate in "architectural professional studies," and postgraduate diplomas in architecture and 
"architectural and professional studies." The Petitioner also claimed that the Beneficiary gained 10 
years of experience in laboratory and vivarium planning and bi_osafety containment design. 
However, the Petitioner provided no further information regarding the Beneficiary's training and did 
not provide sufficient supporting evidence to corroborate the claim that the Beneficiary "shadowed" 
someone in the field to gain knowledge that is specific to the Petitioner's particular type of 
architectural design. The Petitioner did not provide a description of any on-the-job or other 
company-specific training the Beneficiary or other architects are required to complete. Nor did it 
describe how other architects and designers working in the company' obtained their knowledge 
specific to performing design work in the laboratory and containment field of architecture. As the 
Petitioner does not claim to offer a specific training or mentoring program in this field, it is 
reasonable to believe that other members of its staff: like the Beneficiary, gained knowledge of 
laboratory planning and related skills by working at other firms that provide similar design services. 
We have also considered whether the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge. 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 elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. 
As noted earlier, the Petitioner described its organization's design process as "highly participatory" 
and "collaborative" involving participation from "multidisciplinary design experts" and further 
claimed that the Beneficiary's knowledge is specialized because it surpasses that of others within the 
industry and that' of "typical designers" within the organization itself. However, the Petitioner did 
not describe its processes with sufficient detail such that would convey a meaningful understanding 
as to the specific characteristics that distinguish its processes .. fi·om those employed within the 
industry. The Petitioner also claimed that its design process, \vhich is focused on biosafety 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-A-, Inc. 
containment facilities and involves "a detailed risk assessment" followed by "a layered [design] 
approach," differs from that of general architecture projects. However, the Petitioner neither 
claimed nor provided evidence to establish that its process differs trom those used by other 
companies that are similarly engaged in the design of facilities in the science and technology sector. 
Further, we cannot determine that the Beneficiary's knowledge of its processes is advanced in 
relation to the Petitioner ' s other employees , given that we have no information regarding those 
employees' relative knowledge and experience . The Petitioner did not provide evidence of any 
training the Beneficiary completed in company processes upon being hired by the foreign entity or 
explain the processes or procedures in. which he possesses advanced knowledge. Without evidence 
that the Beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge of the foreign entity's processes and procedures, 
we cannot conclude that the Beneticiary's expertise in the organization's processes and procedures is 
greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and understanding in comparison to other 
workers in the organization. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner ' s submission of the expert opinion of Ph.D. 
states he is familiar "with the types of services rendered by [the Petitioner] and similar 
organizations, and the specialized and unique knowledge acquired by individuals who are 
significantly involved in the engineering and development of complex and proprietary technologies 
for these companies." However, it is unclear that familiarity with the Petitioner and the 
services it provides is a sufficient basis for determining that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge. First, it is uncertain how reference to "engineering and development of 
complex and proprietary technologies" applies to the Beneficiary given that he is an architect rather 
than an engineer and the Petitioner made no claims as to any specific ••proprietary technologies" that 
the Beneficiary may have developed or used during the course of his employment with the foreign 
entity, despite claim that the Beneficiary assumed "his critical role in the engineering 
and development of the proprietary software solutions for [the Petitioner) ." 
Second, there is no indication that opinion was based on a review of the immigration 
statute or the applicable regulations pertaining to specialized knowledge, nor evidence that 
educational credentials and work experience resulted in his gaining an understanding of the 
term "specialized knowledge" and its particular relevance and meaning within the context of this 
nonimmigrant visa classification. We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted as 
expert testimony in an advisory manner. However ,' where an opinion is not in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable , we are not required to accept or may give less weight to 
that evidence. Matter o.fCaron International, 19 l&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). Since the opinion 
offered here is not based on the critical statutory and regulatory provisions, we find its probative 
value to be limited. 
In sum, we find that the Petitioner has provided credible evidence, which establishes that the 
Beneficiary's educational credentials , empJoyment experience , and work on award-winning design 
projects in the Petitioner 's industry make the Beneficiary a suitable candidate for the proposed U.S. 
9 
Matter of H-A-, Inc. 
pos1t1on. However, evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge or 
that his duties require specialized knowledge. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge and that he was employed abroad, and will be employed under the 
extended petition, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H-A-, Inc., ID# 205653 (AAO Mar. 13, 2017) 
10