dismissed L-1B Case: Automotive Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21128509 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 19, 2022 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner , a passenger vehicle manufacturer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a cross 
architecture systems lead 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 is qualified to perform the duties of the intended position in the United 
States, and 2) the proposed U.S. position would involve specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to the Beneficiary's salary and contends that it is larger compared to 
other similarly placed individuals in the profession and reflects the importance of his role. The 
Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary was responsible for contributions of major operational 
significance and training highly experienced colleagues. The Petitioner also emphasizes company 
awards and recognition the Beneficiary has received and asserted that he holds specialized knowledge 
that can only be obtained while working for the company . 
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. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate 
eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 
2010). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-IB 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 and the foreign employer, and its affiliated companies around the world, 
operate numerous large-scale vehicle assembly plants, component manufacturing facilities, and 
sophisticated research and development laboratories related to the manufacture of brand name passenger 
vehicles. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary holds "unique ability to validate and release 
propulsion system technical specifications and ensure passenger vehicle engines, automatic 
transmissions, and engine control modules meet regional and ... country emissions requirements." The 
Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary previously worked for the foreign employer in a managerial 
capacity, beginning in 2008, where he was "responsible for all aspects of management, direction, and 
control of Propulsion Systems Execution" overseeing approximately 13 subordinates and tasked with 
leading and setting the timing of "development plans for all new and next generation [company] 
propulsion systems in Indian and export markets." 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's position in the United States bears core technical 
similarities to his prior managerial role abroad, noting he is tasked with defining and participating "in 
the approval of initiatives by senior leadership in [company] Global Propulsion Vehicle Strategy (GPVS) 
and Vehicle Execution (VPE) decision making forums." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would 
"continue to drive and ensure that propulsion system technical specifications (P-STS), engine subsystem 
technical specifications (SSTS), transmission SSTS, and electrification SSTS are deployed ... as part of 
[the company's] overall corporate initiative to centrally consolidate all product development 
requirements." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary coordinates with program management 
and finance teams to develop technical solutions and financial impacts; and that he develops solutions 
and recommendations for senior leadership. The Petitioner emphasized that the Beneficiary is 
considered by his colleagues as an expert in "the engineering and integration of innovative, next­
generation [company] vehicle propulsion system architectures." It further pointed to his nearly 13 years 
of experience with the company, and his receipt of a I I award for outstanding 
technology contribution to the successful launch of the I in 2009 while he was employed 
abroad. 
Later in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner further elaborated on the 
Beneficiary's knowledge, stating that his role was unique and that its very creation was "a product of 
[the company's] Operational Excellence ... methodology, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 
complex propulsion system across carline and cross architectural I lwith significant impact." 
The Petitioner indicated that the company created the I I as an "internal [company] 
comprehensive and highly complex study process to identify, define, and create technical solutions and 
product change content to vehicle systems due to complex and uncertain regulatory changes." The 
Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary, in his role in the United States as a nonimmigrant, developed 
an internal company process document from January to June 2021 "as a comprehensive overview of the 
internal [ company ]I I process." 
The Petitioner then provided details regarding ninel I the Beneficiary led, including the I 
Demissions,I I emissions,! emissions, purge pump removal corporate cost reduction, 
2 
and powertrain thermal cooling optimization taskforcel I The Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary trained professional colleagues and pointed to a "Powertrain and Electrification 
I !Process Flow Chart" he created to the purpose of training "professional en ineering leaders 
and subject matter experts in responsibilities of each function of the [company] rocess." 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary, as a subject matter expert in the company's ___ 
process, trained managers with 15-25 years of experience, including a senior manager, an engineering 
group manager, a propulsion planning manager, a program manager, and a global vehicle system 
engmeenng manager. 
The Petitioner further compared the Beneficiary to his colleagues, noting that his role as an architecture 
propulsion systems lead was "unique," and that the closest comparable colleagues are its propulsion 
system executing vehicle system engineers (VSEs ). The Petitioner submitted a "Skills Comparison 
Matrix" comparing the Beneficiary's skills and experience to the VSEs and asserted that his knowledge 
"far surpasses that the his [company] VSE colleagues in highly complex, technical skillsets, processes, 
tools, such as advanced propulsion systems integration, propulsion systems aftertreatment technologies, 
emissions evaluation test procedures, engine calibration, and propulsion system product content 
optimization for fuel economy targets, as well as internal [company] regulatory compliance operations." 
The Petitioner further stated that the Beneficiary's skill level and expertise in the company's specific 
propulsion system architecture engineering processes, and practices, and procedures is "greater than that 
which is normally found in the [company] organization." The Petitioner submitted several printouts of 
company recognitions the Beneficiary received for his work on projects from his colleagues and other 
senior managers. Lastly, the Petitioner emphasized what it asserted was the Beneficiary's high 
compensation according to U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) salary statistics for the region where he 
will work in the United States, noting that he would be paid more the highest Level IV 1 wage for 
mechanical engineers. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he would be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. As a 
threshold matter, if the Beneficiary does not possess specialized knowledge, then his position 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. § l 184(c)(2)(B). A petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that 
the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong, or both prongs, 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 
1 The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. 
DOL's wage-level guidance specifies that a Level TV designation is reserved for positions involving competent employees 
using advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual or complex problems. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & 
Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), 
available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
3 
level of knowledge or expertise m 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 
We will first discuss whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
"advanced." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). On appeal, the Petitioner again emphasizes the 
Beneficiary's nearly 13 years of progressive experience with the company, his high renumeration, the 
awards and recognitions he has received for his work within the company, and asserts that he 
"possesses a level of knowledge of [the company's] complex international vehicle powertrain 
engineering processes and products that is superior to his similarly situated [company] colleagues." 
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. See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual L.4, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
First, the Petitioner has not sufficiently clarified the nature of the Beneficiary's advanced knowledge 
within the company. For instance, in support of the petition, the Petitioner emphasized the 
Beneficiary's "unique ability to validate propulsion system technical specifications and ensure that 
passenger vehicle engines, automatic transmissions, and engine control modules meet regional and 
per-country emissions requirements." However, later in response to the RFE, the Petitioner pointed 
more to the Beneficiary's knowledge of the company's! I process and his drafting of an 
internal process document, specifically the "Powertrain and Electrification I Request 
Process Flow Chart." The Petitioner further emphasized his work on several I I projects 
involving emissions, "purge pump removal cost reduction," and "powertrain thermal cooling 
optimization." In addition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's skill level and expertise in the 
company's "propulsion system architecture engineering processes, practices, and procedures are 
greater than that which is normally found in the company." Now, on appeal, the Petitioner indicates 
that the Beneficiary "possesses a level of knowledge of [the company's] complex international vehicle 
4 
powertrain engineering processes and products that is superior to his similarly situated [company] 
colleagues." 
The Petitioner sets forth a wide array of knowledge for the Beneficiary, from propulsion systems, 
foreign country emissions requirements, a powertrain and electrification flow chart, the process of 
utilizing company I I and now on appeal "complex international vehicle powertrain 
engineering processes and products." Therefore, it is not sufficiently clear within what area the 
Beneficiary's advanced knowledge lies when compared to his similarly placed colleagues; namely, 
whether it is in propulsion system architecture, powertrains, emissions, the I process itself, 
or a combination of this knowledge. Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently articulated how the 
Beneficiary gained knowledge of these various technical and process concepts greatly developed in 
comparison to that of his colleagues, other than by vaguely pointing to his 13 years of experience and 
asserting that he trained several other senior managers. However, the Petitioner provided little 
supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's provision of training to other senior 
managers. 
Further, the Petitioner indicated that this training reflected the Beneficiary's "knowledge and acumen 
and status as a subject matter expert in the [companyll I Process." Again, this statement 
suggests that the Beneficiary's advanced knowledge is based in the I I process itself and its 
application in creating technical solutions, rather than specific technical subject matter as asserted 
elsewhere, such as propulsion systems, emissions, emissions requirements, powertrains, 
electrification, or other specific technical aspects related to passenger vehicles. Similarly, the 
Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary drafting an internal company process document from January to 
June 2021 "as a comprehensive overview of the internal [company]! I process and a 
"Powertrain and Electrification.__ _____ Process Flow Chart," but it does not sufficiently 
explain the impact of these documents nor how they demonstrate the Beneficiary's advanced knowledge 
in comparison to his colleagues. The Petitioner also emphasized several times on the record that the 
Beneficiary received the I I in 2009 while employed with the foreign employer. 
However, this award was related to "creating an important technical solution that enabled the timely 
launch of thel I sedan program." Although we do not doubt that this award is likely a 
prestigious honor within the company, it is not clear how this reflects his greater level of knowledge 
in propulsion systems, emissions, emissions requirements, powertrains, electrification,! I 
or other specific technical aspects related to passenger vehicles. Again, it is difficult to make a factual 
determination regarding a given beneficiary's specialized knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a 
minimum, articulate with specificity, and in layman's terms, the actual nature of the beneficiary's 
knowledge. 
The Petitioner also did not sufficiently establish how the Beneficiary's knowledge is greatly developed 
as compared to similarly placed colleagues within the organization by providing probative comparisons 
of his knowledge against that of his colleagues. 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. Id. However, the Petitioner provided 
little specific comparisons of the Beneficiary's knowledge and experience against that of his 
colleagues within the greater organization. For instance, the Petitioner points to the Beneficiary's 13 
years of experience, but it provides no indication as to how this compares to his colleagues. The 
Petitioner did submit a comparative analysis chart providing a generic comparison of the Beneficiary's 
5 
knowledge against that of other "Propulsion System Executing Vehicle Engineers (VSEs)," but this 
document does not credibly differentiate him from his colleagues. For example, the Petitioner 
indicates that the Beneficiary's position, cross architecture propulsion systems lead, is "unique," but 
it does not articulate how many other such employees exist within its greater organization or how his 
experience, training, and education compares to these employees. The Petitioner did not provide the 
experience, education, duties, training, salaries, or other probative specifics about the Beneficiary's 
colleagues or other VS Es within the organization, including the members of his immediate department, 
to credibly differentiate his knowledge and experience. 
To illustrate, the Petitioner points to the Beneficiary's claimed high renumeration, but it provides no 
salaries for his similarly placed colleagues to set him apart. Likewise, the Petitioner emphasizes the 
Beneficiary's receipt of the I I award and recognition he received for his work on 
several projects. However, again, it is not clear how the Beneficiary awards and recognition 
demonstrate that his knowledge is greatly developed in comparison to his colleagues. In fact, the 
Petitioner stated that thel I award is given to the top one percent of foreign employer 
employees, "or [to] around 30 of the organization's approximately 3,000 employees" on an annual 
basis. This suggests that the award has been given to over 300 individuals just within the Beneficiary's 
former foreign employer since he received this award, and this represents only one I affiliate 
amongst likely numerous others within the company's large multinational organization. The Petitioner 
provides two "spontaneous recognition awards" the Beneficiary received in 2009 and 2011 while 
working for the foreign employer but provides little explanation as to how this differentiates him from 
his similarly placed colleagues within the company. The Petitioner also submitted several printouts 
from its internal system showing the Beneficiary's colleagues praising his work on several different 
projects. However, again, there is little indication how this demonstrates that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is greatly developed in comparison to the colleagues, including those giving him 
recognition, or indeed, his colleagues on his teams which also received the same recognition in several 
of the provided printouts. 
The lack of specific comparisons between the Beneficiary and his similarly placed colleagues is 
noteworthy since the record indicates that there are numerous others within the greater organization who 
likely have extensive knowledge of the company's products and processes. For instance, the Petitioner 
stated that it employs 164,000 individuals worldwide and over 85,000 in the United States alone. 
Therefore, without specific comparisons of the Beneficiary against even those in his own department, it 
is reasonable to conclude that there are likely many others within the company's greater organization 
with high levels of knowledge of its propulsion systems, emissions, emissions requirements, 
powertrains, electrification, mega studies, or other specific technical aspects related to passenger 
vehicles. 
Although the Beneficiary's experience appears noteworthy, it is difficult to discern whether it is greatly 
set apart from his colleagues as the Petitioner provides little specific information or evidence related to 
the experience and education of his colleagues. We have little doubt that the Beneficiary is likely a 
valuable employee, but the Petitioner has not met the regulatory requirement of demonstrating with 
documentary evidence that the Beneficiary's knowledge of the organization's processes and 
procedures is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and understanding in 
comparison to other workers in the employer's operations. For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge. 
6 
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. See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual L.4, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary's knowledge is distinct and uncommon in 
comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the industry. Upon review, the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's knowledge is special as defined by the regulations. 
First, as we discussed at length in the previous section, the Petitioner does not clearly describe the 
Beneficiary's knowledge in easily understandable terms, but submits a array of technical aspects, 
processes, and projects that he has worked on over the last 13 years. The Petitioner emphasizes the 
Beneficiary's awards and recognition but does not sufficiently explain how this reflects knowledge 
that is distinct or uncommon within the industry. Likewise, the Petitioner emphasized training the 
Beneficiary provided to other senior managers but did not corroborate this provision of training 
through supporting documentation. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
Even if we accept that the Petitioner holds knowledge of specific proprietary products, methods, and 
processes specific to the company, and that the Beneficiary has knowledge of them, this alone is not 
sufficient to establish that his knowledge is distinct or uncommon in the industry. In fact, it is common 
in nearly every industry for companies to hold unique or proprietary knowledge and to work on highly 
complex products 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 
comp an son. 
However, the Petitioner provides little supporting evidence beyond its assertions to substantiate that 
the Beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon in the industry. The Petitioner did not specifically compare 
the Beneficiary's education, experience, and training to similarly placed engineers in the industry, an 
industry including many other automobile manufacturers and likely numerous engineers. The 
Petitioner only submitted job postings for the Beneficiary's position in its region, indicating that it 
required 60 months' experience in propulsion systems and meeting emissions requirements. The 
Petitioner contends that it received "zero applicants" for the Beneficiary's position, both outside and 
7 
within the company. However, it is not clear how this demonstrates uncommon knowledge when 
compared to other similarly placed engineers within the automobile industry. The Petitioner also 
emphasizes that the Beneficiary is paid above that of a typical Level IV wage for a mechanical 
engineer in its region according to the DOL and that this is reflective of his "high renumeration for 
expert services." However, given that the Beneficiary's proffered wage is $118,903 and the prevailing 
wage in the Petitioner's region for Level IV mechanical engineers is $112,507, his salary level does 
not appear uncommon in comparison. 2 Further, without supporting evidence to the contrary, it is 
reasonable to conclude that there are very likely numerous other mechanical engineers working for 
both the Petitioner and other similarly placed automobile manufacturers within the industry who earn 
salaries more than the Level IV prevailing wage for their region, or who are "fully competent" and use 
"advanced skills and diversified knowledge to solve unusual or complex problems," or who have 
knowledge and experience required for a Level IV mechanical engineer. Therefore, the Petitioner's 
contention that the Beneficiary is set apart from his similarly placed colleagues in the industry based 
on his salary is not convincing. 
Therefore, the Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate how the Beneficiary's education and experience 
is uncommon when compared to other similarly placed colleagues within the industry. Without 
objective evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that there are many other engineers 
who have extensive experience in their company's products and processes. Therefore, the Petitioner 
has not established that the Beneficiary's knowledge is "special" as defined by the regulations. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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, when considering the totality of 
the circumstances, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. For this reason, the appeal must 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 See https://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code= 17-2141 &area= year=22&source=1 1 (last 
visited Dec. 19, 2022). 
8