dismissed L-1B Case: Astronomy

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-R-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27. 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129. PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner. an astronomical observatory, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
assistant scientist under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany tran sferee s. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 101(a)(l5)(L). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-IB 
classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its aftiliate or subsidiary) to tran sfer 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 record did not 
establish. as required. that: the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge: has been employed 
abroad as a manager , executive, or in a specialized knowledge capacity; and will be employed in the 
United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by disregarding persuasive information and 
by misinterpreting the standards for ''specialized knowledge :' 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B nonimmigrant visa clas sification , a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary ·'in a capacity that is managerial , executive, or involve s s peciali zed 
knowledge, .. for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section l0l(a)(I5)(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. /d. 
A beneficiary is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to 
a company if the beneficiary has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in 
international markets or has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the 
company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). 
Specialized knowledge is also defined as knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning 
organization's product service. research. equipment, techniques , management or other interests and its 
.
Malfer ofN-R-A-
application in international markets , or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise 111 the 
organization's processes and procedures. 8 C.F.R . ~ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(D) . 
An individual L-1 8 classification petition must include evidence that: ( l) the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a position that was manageriaL executive, or involved specialized knO\vledge 
for at least one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition: (2) the 
beneficiary is coming to work in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity tor the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer: and (3) the beneficiary's prior 
education, training and employment qualities him or her to perform the intended services in the United 
States . 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1)(3). 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses 
knowledge that is special or advanced compared to others in the same f1eld. The Director also found 
that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary had previously been employed in a position that 
was manageriaL executive, or involved specialized knowledge, and that the U.S. position involves a 
special or advanced level of knowledge. 
As a threshold issue, we must determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge . If the evidence is insufficient to establish that he possesses 
specialized knowledge. then we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's past and intended future 
employment involve specialized knowledge. (The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity.) 
A petitioner may establish eligibility for an L-1 B visa by submitting evidence that the beneficiary 
and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition. Under the statute. 
specialized knowledge consists of either: (I) 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 ofthe company. Section 214(c)(2)(8) ofthe Act. 
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 beneticiary"s 
knowledge against that of others. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge . the 
petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that the beneticiary ·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 special or advanced , and that the 
beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 
In the present case, the Petitioner has not specifically claimed that the Beneficiary has special 
knowledge, but has referred to advanced knowledge. 
2 
.
Matter<?[ N-R-A-
Because "advanced knowl edge'· concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and proc edures. 
the Petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the Beneficiary has knowledge of or an 
expertise in the organization's proce sses 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. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed spec ialized knowledge. it is the weight and 
type of evidence which establishes whether or not the beneficiary actually posses ses spec ialized 
knowledge. We cannot make a factual determination regarding a beneficiar y's specialized 
knowledge if the petition er does not, at a minimum , articulate with specificit y the nature of its 
products and services or processes and procedure s, the nature of the specific indust ry or tield 
involved, and the nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how 
such knowledge is typicall y gained within the organization, and explain how and when the 
beneficiary gained such knowl edge . 
manages the petitionin
g e ntity and also "plays an outsize role in 
the operations and manag ement of' the , a 
radio observatory based in Chile . The Petitioner stated: 
[T]he beneficiar y perfo rms the follmving specialized knowledge dutie s at 
• Implement the scie ntific goals of the Observatory. and more generally radio 
astronomy and advancing state of the art technologi es that support the cunent 
and anticipated future needs of the Observator y. 
• Identify and prototype technologies and/or component s that may be critical to 
the Observatory's operational future program s, and where resources permit, to 
the future of radio, millimeter, and sub-millimeter astronomy in general. 
• Identify and pursue broader technical opportunities to extend radio science 
technolo gy to associated disciplin es, includin g taking advant age of 
opportuniti es t(x pm1nerships with academic and government entities, and 
where appropriate , for commercialization with industry partners. 
• Help deve lop program propo salfs], manpower pans, and carrying out strateg ic 
planning . 
• Ensure that research and technical deve lopment programs follow best proj ect 
management practices, and that projects are planned and completed within 
established controls and according to Observatory priorities . 
• Assist in the preparation and review of fthe Petitioner's] program plans. long 
range plans. and other strategic documentation . 
• Ensure proact ive compliance with all [the Petitioner ' s] and government safety 
policie s and procedures. 
• Perform 
other dutie s as ass igned. 
.
Matter ofN-R- A-
The beneficiary uses his advanced and specializ ed knowled ge of the highly 
sophisticated systems, tools and technologies developed at and specitically ft)r 
in performin g the follO\ving duties: 
• Science Operations Software Tools Tester: Acting as DSO subsystem 
lead scientist of Project Tracker and Project life-Cycle. representing 
[the Petitioner] in meeting with external organization s in weather forecast: 
• Technical Assessor : Assessing PRP Cycle I and 2 and acting as Technic al 
Assessment Workshop Astronomer on duty for Cycle 0 and 2: and 
• Data Analysi s and Reduction of data Scien tist: Studying the Effec t of 
Altiplanic Winter in observing conditions. 
As an Assistant Scienti st involved in cornmt sstoning and science verification, the 
beneficiary has acquired significant speciali zed knowl edge and experience relating to 
the capabilities of as well as the essential . . . software. instruments. 
procedures and processes used to operate the facility . Through commissioning and 
science verificati on. the beneficiar y has been directly involved in integratin g 
numerous disparate , individual components into a system that functions at an 
engineering level and then into an instrument that meets the science/astronomy 
requirement s through quantitative contirmation that the data produced by the 
instrument is valid and has the required characteristics in terms of sensitivity. image 
quality and accuracy. While the data generated by is shared around the 
world, informati on about how the system operates, what components require 
replacement or upgrading. and how opera tions can he improved can be acquired only 
through extensive prior experie nce with Chile . 
. . . [T]e beneficiary has been specifically chosen for this role due to his direct and 
specialized knowledge of the operations of the facility in Chile. This 
specialized knowl edge does not exist in the United States labor market because it can 
be acquired only through direct knowledge of, and experie nce with. the operations of 
that facility. 
The beneficiary's advanced level of knowl edge of is integral to 
communicating with stafT and external resources in the United States in coordinating 
scientific verification tasks, evaluating the control softwar e and software tools 
for science operations, and planning science operations . There is no other individual 
within - or outside of - the organization capabl e of fulfilling this role, making 
the beneficia ry uniquely suited to fill it The responsibilitie s require that the 
beneficiary have a thorough understanding of technical product infmmati on as well as 
4 
.
Malter <?f N-R-A-
an ability to analyze and interpret data. Specialized and advanced knowledge 
of [the Petitioner's] and policies and procedures is critical to effectively 
contribute to the development and execution of ... plans and strategies for the 
continued development and operation of Therefore, the knowledge 
possessed by the beneficiary is integral to the otTered position in the United States 
and an absolute requirement for the successful performance ofjob duties. 
The Beneficiary's 2015-2016 performance appraisal lists "Key Responsibilities'· but. as a personnel 
document for existing staff: does not detail any specialized knowledge the position requires. 
The Petitioner submitted background information about itsel[ and and documentation 
of the Beneficiary's degrees and academic background. This evidence leaves little doubt that the 
Beneliciary has been involved in important scientific research at a highly respected facility. but does 
not address the Beneficiary's role in the research. The materials do not explain how the Beneficiary 
possesses. or that his work involves, specialized knowledge as the regulations define that term. The 
background evidence docs not address or support the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary's 
work with requires years of experience and training. 
Calling "'the largest astronomical project in existence,'" the Petitioner stated 
that · is a 
single telescope of revolutionary design , composed of 66 high precision antennas" which must be 
synchronized '"with a precision of one millionth of a millionth of a second ... with an accuracy 
equal to the diameter of a human hair.'' The Petitioner did not, however. explain the Beneficiary's 
role in this process or explain how the knowledge required to fulfill that role is special or advanced. 
In the denial decision , the Director acknowledged the Beneficiary's academic training and 
employment experience at the foreign observatory, but found that the Petitioner had not shown that 
the Beneficiary"s familiarity with the subject of his work amounts to special or advanced knowledg e. 
On appeaL the Petitioner stated that it ·'conclusively address[ ed] each of the issues raised in" a 
request for evidence. The Petitioner's letter in response to that request is largely similar to the 
Petitioner's initial statement. The second letter included more information about how 
operates, but not about the Beneficiary's role or how his work involves specialized knowledge. 
The Petitioner alleges "a clear misreading and misinterpretation" of the statute and a list of factors 
found in a 2015 policy memorandum. The Petitioner asserts that the Director ·'did not consider the 
... memo guidelines in adjudicating the petition and ignored the evidence presented by the petition 
that clearly demonstrated eligibility under this standard.'' Specifically, the Petitioner states that it 
has met the following factors listed in the memorandum: 
• The beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity involving assignments 
that have significantly enhanced the employer's productivity. competitiveness, 
image. or financial position. 
.
A.-faller (?fN-R-A-
• The beneficiary' s claimed specialized knowledge normally can be gained only 
through prior experience with the petitioning organization . 
• The beneficiary possesses knowledge of a product or process that cannot be easily 
transferred or taught to another individual without significant economic cost or 
inconvenience (because. for example, such knowledge may require substantial 
training, work experience, or education). 
• The beneficiary has knovvledge of a process or a product that either is 
sophisticated or complex, or of a highly technical nature, although not neces sarily 
unique to the petitioning organization. 
USCJS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111 , L-JB Adjudications Poli[y 8 (Aug. 17, 2015). 
http ://v..'ww.uscis.gov /Jaws/policy-memoranda. The Petitioner , on appeaL doe s not explain how it 
has met the aboYe factors. The Petitioner paraphrases. and sometimes directly repeats, assert ions 
from its earlier statements. and asserts that · is a one-of-a-kind and state-of-the-art 
astronomical facility and that the beneficiary is engaged in planning and executing the facility' s 
scientific commissioning using his specialized scientitic experti se: · The Petitioner does not explain 
how the commissioning process at differs from that at other radio telescope arrays , or how 
the Beneficiary 's role, individually , ditlers from that of other assistant scientists and astronomers on 
dut y at or other radio observatories. 
A petitioner's statements may provide persuasive evidence of specialized knowledge if they are 
detailed , specific, and credible . Here, the Petitioner asks us to put great \Veight on its statement s 
regarding the Beneficiary's knowledge of its organization. However , the record Jacks probati ve 
evidence demonstrating that extensive training is required to perform the duties it claims are 
different from that of other assistant scientists, either within or outside of the organization. Whil e 
there may be no other employees with the exact same knowledge the Beneficiary possesses , the 
record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge is in fact significantly diffe rent from 
that generally heJd by workers in similar positions in the industry . The Beneficiary has years of 
experience working with but this does not show that the Beneficiary's knowledge of 
takes years to acquire . 
To differentiate the Beneficiar y's knowledge from other employees within the petitioning 
organization , we must review the duties of those employees in similar positions, as well as their 
training, education, and length of experience with the petitioning organization's missi on. Here, the 
Petitioner has not provided this information. The Petitioner did not describe hoVI• this Beneticiary's 
work and responsibilities ditler from other employees or hov.' other employees gained their 
knowledge of the petitioning organization. The Petitioner has not established that the Beneticiary" s 
knowledge is advanced within the petitioning organization's own operations. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized 
knowledge and will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity with the 
Petitioner in the United States. See Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act. Accordingly , the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
.
Malter olN-R-A-
We note that the Petitioner stated "[t]he beneficiary will continue to be based in Chile,'' but the 
Petitioner seeks the L-1 B visa "so that [the Beneficiary] travel to the United States on an intermittent 
basis ... to coordinate scientific verification tasks, evaluate the control soilware and software 
tools for science operations, and plan science operations." The Petitioner has provided little information 
about the Beneficiary's intended activities in the United States, and has not adequately explained how 
those activities would involve specialized knowledge. Whatever the nature of the Beneficiary's primary 
employment in Chile, the Beneficiary does not require United States immigration benefits or 
employment authorization for him to continue to perform that work in Chile. 
We further note that the Petitioner has filed another nonimmigrant petition. seeking to classify the 
Beneficiary as an H-1 B nonimmigrant worker. That petition has been approved. neutralizing any 
argument that denial of this petition will adversely affect the Petitioner's mission. The Petitioner 
acknowledges this other approval. but maintains that approval of the present petition "will benefit [the 
Petitionerl with L-IB petitions it may tile in the future." Approval ofthis petition would set no broader 
precedent particularly in light of the Petitioner's claim that "[t]here is no other individual within ~ or 
outside of~ the organization capable of fulfilling this role," in which case we would not expect 
to see additional petitions for other beneficiaries to fill that same role. If the other petitions would 
involve wholly different positions. then the approval of this petition would not provide much useful 
guidance. On the other hand. if the other positions are largely similar to this beneficiary's position, 
then the Petitioner mischaracterized that position. Either way. we make no broader finding as to 
whether or not astronomers may, under some circumstances, qualify for L-1 B status. We 
find only that the Petitioner has not met its burden of proof in this particular proceeding. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. Therefore, we 
cannot find that the Beneficiary's past employment abroad and his intended U.S. employment 
involve specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller olN-R-A- 10# 862164 (AAO Feb. 27, 2018)