dismissed L-1B Case: Automotive Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12263663 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 16, 2020 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of automobile roof systems, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "Senior Project Engineer-Roof Systems Expert" in the United States under the L-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See 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, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that 1) the Beneficiary had specialized knowledge and was qualified to perform the intended 
services in the United States; 2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a position that involved 
specialized knowledge; and 3) the proposed U.S. position would involve specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director ignored probative and credible evidence 
demonstrating that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of the company's proprietary automobile 
roof systems and engineering. The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's knowledge is specialized 
in comparison to her colleagues in China. 
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). 
11. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner indicated that it is a U.S. subsidiary office of a worldwide parent company and stated that 
this group of companies is "an innovative leader in the design, engineering and assembly of door 
systems, access control systems, roof systems, motors and electronic systems, closure systems, [and] 
interior systems." The Petitioner explained that it "provides advanced materials and processes to leading 
original equipment manufacturers ("OEM") around the globe" and that it is an "innovative leader in the 
design, engineering and assembly of Sunroof systems." 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary "has several years of experience with the [company]" 
including "key insights into the company's process and procedures." The Petitioner explained that the 
Beneficiary has been employed in various positions with the company since July 2014 and twice 
promoted, including to a senior product engineer in 2017 and a product development supervisor in 2018. 
It stated that the Beneficiary was tasked with overseeing engineering and product development activities, 
including working with OEM and supplier partners to package sunroofs in new vehicles, supervising 
"3D and 2D data release," and completing "design failure mode and effects analysis." 
The Petitioner emphasized that the Beneficiary had "gained and developed extensive specialized 
knowledge ... to provide its customers with customized, high quality, and innovative solutions to their 
automotive application issues." It also indicated that the Beneficiary had knowledge of internal customer 
and supplier requirement, and in the "training and application of [the company's] proprietary engineering 
tool kit to design and engineer industry leading solutions for our customers." It also explained that the 
Beneficiary has "experience working with our key customer and supplier partners" and had obtained a 
detailed technical background of their standards and specifications which can be applied to engineering 
solutions." It stated that the Beneficiary would "continue to serve as the subject matter expert for [the 
Petitioner's] highly specialized and proprietary product design of Sunroof Systems." The Petitioner 
added that the Beneficiary's position "requires a considerable amount of on-the-job and hands-on 
training and experience." 
The Petitioner further submitted examples of the Beneficiary's lprojrts during his time with the 
company, such as him "participating in quotations projects of new business," winning the! I I ~unroof project in September 2019," and in 2019 leading a "successful 12 Week Global "Best 
of Benchmark'! I Sunroof Workshop for a major OEM to secure future 
business awards." The Petitioner also provided examples of the Beneficiary's work product, including 
a "Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis" document, other design review and project management 
documents, as well as presentations including the Beneficiary's name along with those of other colleague 
engineers. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petition~r stated that the Beneficiary 
"supports the daily production of Dprojects which are running inL__J Mexico" and that he "helps 
[the] U.S. team to build good/high-efficiency communication with China team in term of engineering, 
purchasing, quotation, etc." It also indicated that the Beneficiary "participates in Request for Quotation 
2 
actions likC7.I I and Best of Benchmark" helping the company "winD while 
acting as the "Lead Product Engineer o 
~-~ 
111. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he was employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. As a 
threshold matter, if the Beneficiary does not possess specialized knowledge, then his position abroad and 
in the United States would not involve specialized knowledge as necessary to qualify him. 
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. § 1184(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(1)(1)(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. 
A. Advanced Knowledge 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary holds advanced knowledge of the company's 
proprietary automobile roof systems and engineering. 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 
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. 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. 
First, the Petitioner has not sufficiently articulated the Beneficiary's knowledge as necessary to 
determine whether it is advanced as defined by the regulations. For instance, the Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary "has several years of experience with the [company]" and that he had provided "key 
insights into the company's processes and procedures." However, it does not specifically describe the 
3 
Beneficiary's experience in layman's terms, explain his "key insights" in clear language, nor did it 
articulate the nature of the company's processes and procedures. Likewise, the Petitioner discussed 
various technical terms applicable in the automobile sunroof development and production industry and 
the Beneficiary's work, but provides no specific explanation of them, including "3D and 2D data 
release," "design failure mode and effects analysis," I I' I I" I I among others. The Petitioner emphasized that the Beneficiary had "gained and developed 
extensive specialized knowledge ... to provide its customers with customized, high quality, and 
innovative solutions to their automotive application issues," but it did not clearly detail the innovative 
solutions he developed. It further explained that the Beneficiary had in-depth knowledge of "internal 
customer and supplier requirements," "training," and its "proprietary engineering tool kit," yet the nature 
of these requirements, this training, and proprietary tool kit is left unclear. 
The Petitioner also emphasized that the Beneficiary is a "subject matter expert" in its "highly specialized 
and proprietary product design of Sunroof Systems." However, this subject matter and these claimed 
proprietary product designs are not specifically explained. In addition, the Petitioner asserted that the 
Beneficiary's foreign and U.S. positions "require a considerable amount of on-the-job and hands-on 
training and experience," yet it does not specifically indicate how many hours or years of training and 
experience are required to perform the duties of the Beneficiary's positions or to achieve a level of 
knowledge that is greatly developed when compared to similarly placed colleagues. 
Further, the Petitioner submits various examples of the Beneficiary's work product, such as a "Potential 
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis" design document and other such design review, project 
management, and presentations documents, but it provided no discussion or context as to why these 
documents are relevant or what they are meant to demonstrate. Several times on the record the Petitioner 
also appears to suggest that the Beneficiary provides services for large automobile clients, including 
supporting "the daily production of □projects which are running in I I Mexico." However, at 
no point does it discuss in detail the exact nature of the Beneficiary work for these clients. As we have 
noted, 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 and the nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. 
The Petitioner has also not sufficiently established how the Beneficiary's knowledge is greatly 
developed as compared to similarly placed colleagues within the organization. Determining whether 
knowledge is "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge against that 
of others. The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing such a favorable comparison. However, the 
Petitioner provided no specific comparisons of the Beneficiary's knowledge and experience against 
that of his colleagues within the greater company. 
The Petitioner indicates that it is one company amongst many others entities across its multinational 
organization employing approximately 15,000 individuals around the world. However, the Petitioner 
does not discuss how many other employees work in positions similar to the Beneficiary's. Similarly, I 
the Petitioner appears to indicate that the Beneficiary provides services to large clients, such as 
I I and I I but it does not indicate how many other professionals similar to the 
Beneficiary provide services to these specific clients or other clients around the world, including 
several other large automobile companies listed in its marketing materials. Given this evidence and 
since the Petitioner states that it is an "innovative leader in the design, engineering and assembly of 
4 
Sunroof systems," it is reasonable to conclude that it employs many other engineers performing duties 
comparable to those of the Beneficiary around the world. However, the Petitioner provides no specific 
comparisons of his knowledge against that of similarly placed colleagues to establish that it is greatly 
developed in comparison. 
In fact, the Petitioner submitted an organizational structure titled 'I !Technical Center," appearing 
to include the Beneficiary's coworkers abroad and this the chart listed a senior roof engineering manager 
and three product development managers/supervisors, as well as more than 20 other product engineers 
shown at the Beneficiary's same level within the organizational chart. This organizational chart supports 
a conclusion that there are likely many others performing duties similar to those of the Beneficiary within 
his specific foreign department, and the greater company, and suggests that his knowledge is likely 
widely held by his similarly placed colleagues. 
For example, the Petitioner submitted a 2018 ~-------' Design Review: IDR" power point 
presentation listing the Beneficiary as presenting on the status of certain deliverables in this project, but 
this document also reflected his colleagues presenting on other deliverables, and in some cases, him 
jointly presenting with his colleagues. Again, this would indicate that there are many other similarly 
placed engineers within the company's greater organization performing the Beneficiary's duties and 
likely holding comparable knowledge of its products, technology, and client specific specifications and 
requirements. As another example, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary won awards and/or 
recognition within the company, including I I Best of Benchmark" and "win[ning]I I but there 
is little indication as to the nature of these comparisons or how they set the Beneficiary apart from his 
colleagues. The Petitioner provides no credible comparisons or evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and 
understanding in comparison to other workers in its greater company operations. 
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)(1)(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 we noted, the Petitioner appears to only directly assert on appeal that the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
advanced within its organization and does not explicitly contend that it is special, or distinct or 
5 
uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in its particular 
industry. Therefore, we will only briefly discuss whether the Beneficiary's knowledge qualifies as 
special according to the regulatory definition. Upon review, the Petitioner has not established the 
Beneficiary's knowledge can be considered special. First, as we discussed at length in the previous 
section, the Petitioner does not clearly describe the nature of the Beneficiary's knowledge, nor its place 
within its industry. The Petitioner states that it is "innovative leader in the design, engineering and 
assembly of Sunroof systems." However, it submits little supporting evidence to substantiate this 
contention. 
Even if we accept that it is an "innovator" in this industry and that it holds knowledge of complex 
proprietary products, processes, or technologies, this alone is not sufficient to establish that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is distinct or uncommon. In fact, it is common in nearly every technical 
industry for companies to hold unique or proprietary knowledge and to work on highly complex 
problems and services. The Petitioner must set the Beneficiary apart from similarly placed workers 
within the industry and demonstrate that his knowledge as distinct or uncommon in comparison. 
However, again, the Petitioner provides no specific explanation of the industry or comparisons of the 
Beneficiary against other similarly placed professionals within it. Without this specific information 
and evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that there are various other companies providing goods and 
services similar to those of the Petitioner, the foreign employer, and its affiliates; and in turn, many 
other engineers holding knowledge comparable to that of the Beneficiary. 
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 his position 
abroad and in the United States would not involve specialized knowledge as necessary to qualify him. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6