dismissed L-1B Case: Automotive

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13856515 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN . 7, 2021 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner , an automotive supplier , seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its 
"Organization Development Expert " under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish , as 
required , that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that she was employed abroad and 
would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity . The matter is now before 
us on appeal. 
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 conclude that the Petitioner did not 
meet that burden. Therefore , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB nonimmigrant visa classification , 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. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 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 is part of a multinational organization that operates in the automotive industry. It was 
acquired by the Beneficiary 's foreign employer in a 2015 purchase transaction and is engaged in the 
design, manufacture , and distribution of a range of automotive parts . The Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary is part of a "rotational program" it has in place for its "key personnel" who possess "unique 
knowledge of [its] product lines, internal procedures , manufacturing and production methods , and 
business practices ." It points to the Beneficiary's baccalaureate degree in business administration and 
marketing and her four years of employment in the automotive industry with the Petitioner and its 
foreign parent entity, claiming that the Beneficiary's education and work experience resulted in an 
"advanced level of expertise" in methodology and products that are proprietary and unique to the 
Petitioner's organization. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's position abroad involved 
"specialized knowledge job duties," including being responsible for global leadership communication, 
supporting corporate integration by assuming a critical role on the integration management team, 
designing a leadership communications program, and putting forth initiatives that deal with global 
strategy and a corporate management system. The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary's 
proposed position will involve "specialized tasks," including consulting upper-level managers and 
executives in the implementation of "strategy-oriented change" and development projects, 
conceptualizing and planning "organization development processes," ensuring that the organization's 
"change processes" are consistently integrated and align with corporate goals, and supporting 
management in creating a "holistic approach" for developing the organization's design, process, 
communications, and "team/culture." 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether she has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the United 
States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
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. 1 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge ifhe 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. A 
petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition. 
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 knowledge, the petitioner 
ordinarily must demonstrate that the 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 special or advanced, and that the beneficiary's position 
requires such knowledge. 
Special knowledge concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its 
application in international markets. To establish that a beneficiary has special knowledge, the 
petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular 
industry. 
Because "advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, 
the petitioning entity may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge of or 
an 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. 
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 such knowledge is 
typically gained within the organization and explain how and when the individual beneficiary gained 
such knowledge. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner initially submitted a supporting cover letter highlighting the 
Beneficiary's experience in the automotive industry which it claims resulted in "unique knowledge of 
the company's product lines, internal procedures, manufacturing and production methods, and 
business practices." However, the Petitioner did not describe its products, procedures, manufacturing 
and production methods, or business practices and thus did not explain how they are unique or why 
specialized knowledge is required to work with them. Likewise, although the Petitioner claimed that 
the Beneficiary has "an advanced level of sophistication" of its organization's products and 
methodology, it did not distinguish its products and methodology from what is common within the 
automotive parts industry or explain how the Beneficiary's knowledge is more developed in 
comparison to other company employees. 
As supporting evidence, the Petitioner provided copies of presentation slides, indicating that the 
Beneficiary created the presentation to facilitate the dissemination of information about the company's 
"change and communications measures" and means of implementing new strategy and "way of 
working" to company employees on a global scale. The Petitioner also provided slides pertaining to 
in-person and virtual workshops as further evidence of initiatives advanced by the Beneficiary. The 
Petitioner did not elaborate on the substance of its communications, strategy, or "way of working" 
clarifying why specialized knowledge was required to spearhead these corporate initiatives. Further, 
the Petitioner did it discuss how and when the Beneficiary gained the knowledge that is claimed to be 
specialized. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director found that the Petitioner did not identify any of the 
employing organization's products or services or the processes and procedures that were involved in 
the Beneficiary's assigned job duties and required specialized knowledge. The Director also noted 
that the Petitioner did not define the Beneficiary's knowledge as either "special" or "advanced," state 
how the Beneficiary gained that, or distinguish the Beneficiary's knowledge from that of others who 
3 
are similarly employed within the employer or within the industry. The Director therefore instructed 
the Petitioner to address these evidentiary deficiencies. 
The Petitioner's response includes a statement from I I the foreign entity's head of 
corporate communications, who stated that the Beneficiary "built up a unique network to important 
leaders" at its foreign headquarters and has knowledge that is "advanced and srecialized" with respect 
to the company's strategy, communications, and decision-making processes. ldid not point 
to specific elements of the organization's strategy, communications, or decision-making processes to 
explain how they are uncommon within the industry or why "advanced and specialized knowledge" 
of these components was necessary for the Beneficiary to achieve her primary objective of designing 
the annual executive meetings where executives come together to "align on activities to achieve the 
company's strategic goals.'1 I also did not establish a causal relationship between building a 
network of "important leaders" at the foreign entity and gaining specialized knowledge . 
.__ __ ___.lalso claimed that the Beneficiary spearheaded two key projects, one of which involved 
designing "a methodology" and "communication documents" for the purpose of communicating "the 
strategy" and ensuring that the company is globally aligned with respect to the "strategic goals" set by 
the headquarters in Germany. I ldid not, however, describe the methodology or the contents 
of the "communication documents" to substantiate the claim that specialized knowledge was required 
for their creation and development.I I stated that the objective of the other key project was to 
integrate the foreign entity with the U.S. entity it acquired in a corporate merger by creating "new 
combined corporate values" that would be commonly shared by the entire multinational organization. 
He explained that in order to meet this objective the Beneficiary created "processes and methodologies 
to change culture" and "wrote documents such as presentations, key messages, [and] talking points" 
to be used by management to convey "the new behavior" to their subordinates. However! I 
did not describe the processes and methodologies that the Beneficiary created; nor did he explain why 
specialized knowledge was required either to create those processes and methodologies or to write the 
documents that would be used to inform and promote "the new behavior" among the company's 
workforce. 
Furthe~ I claimed that the Beneficiary gained a "deep understanding" of company strategy, 
structure, and processes and was able to forge a "strong network of leaders and communications 
representatives." However, it is unclear that a "deep understanding" is synonymous with specialized 
knowledge. And although! I stressed the value of the Beneficiary's work to the organization, 
he did not specify when and how the Beneficiary acquired the knowledge that is claimed to be 
specialized. Merely stating that the Beneficiary's "education as an organization development 
consultant" resulted in specialized knowledge in the set-up of "change projects" is not sufficient to 
convey a meaningful understanding of the path to acquiring the specialized knowledge that the 
Beneficiary is claimed to possess. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a statement from its vice president of organization development, 
I I who similarly claimed that the Beneficiary possesses "advanced and specialized 
knowledge" with respect to the foreign entity's "top management" and leaders, the company's culture, 
and the style of communicating and decision-making within the organization. However] I 
did not provide farther clarifying information as to the nature of the Beneficiary's claimed specialized 
knowledge or the timeline explaining when and how the knowledge was gained. Further, because the 
4 
Petitioner did not describe a progression in the Beneficiary's knowledge during her employment 
abroad, it is unclear how her education and experience with the foreign entity resulted in the 
Beneficiary attaining a level of knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that because of the complexity of its multinational organization, it 
prioritizes providing its employees with "consistent guidance and implementation of its strategy" to 
ensure "a cohesive corporate culture" within the context of a merged organization. The Petitioner 
stresses the Beneficiary's "integral" role in creating processes and methodologies that will provide 
"consistent guidance" on how to communicate and train employees to implement the organization's 
shared "strategic goals." The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's knowledge is specialized 
because it is distinct from the knowledge of others in the organization and in the field and cannot be 
easily transferred, highlighting the Beneficiary's "extended practice and routine exposure to the 
proprietary management strategies and processes ... as well as the company's communication and 
decision-making methodologies," which the Petitioner claims resulted in advanced knowledge in the 
organization's "processes, techniques, and methodologies." However, the Petitioner does not describe 
its "proprietary management strategies and processes," explain why only someone with specialized 
knowledge can understand these strategies and processes, or establish that such understanding leads 
to specialized knowledge of the company's proprietary "processes, techniques, and methodologies." 
The Petitioner also has not answered the critical question of how and when the Beneficiary gained the 
knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. The Petitioner has stated that the Beneficiary was 
employed by the foreign entity from May 2015 to February 2017, thereby indicating that the 
specialized knowledge was gained during that 22-month time period. However, the Petitioner does 
not outline a progression of knowledge from the time of the Beneficiary's hiring to the point she 
purportedly attained knowledge that is claimed to be specialized knowledge, nor does it specify the 
length of time it took the Beneficiary to gain that knowledge . Rather, the Petitioner broadly states that 
the Beneficiary had "extended practice and routine exposure to [its] proprietary management strategies 
and processes ." 
Further, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a specialized knowledge 
employee consistent with those cited users Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-JB Adjudications 
Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov /laws/policy-memoranda . Namely, the Petitioner 
contends that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is of significant value to its organization, is 
beneficial to the Petitioner's competitiveness in the marketplace , can only be gained through 
experience with its organization, and cannot be easily taught or transferred . However, these 
characteristics alone are not probative of the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge. As noted in the 
memorandum, the "characteristics" listed by the Petitioner are only "factors that users may consider 
when determining whether a beneficiary 's knowledge is specialized ." Id. The memorandum 
emphasizes that "ultimately, it is the weight and type of evidence that establishes whether the 
beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge ." Id. at 13. 
Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is both "special" and 
"advanced" because it is proprietary and not widely held throughout the organization, it does not 
specifically describe the organization's products, services, or techniques to support the claim that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is "special," nor does it describe its specific processes and procedures to 
support the claim that her knowledge is "advanced." And despite highlighting the Beneficiary's 
5 
educational credentials and "extended practice and routine exposure to [its] proprietary management 
strategies and processes," the Petitioner does not outline a path for gaining specialized knowledge 
within its organization with respect to those strategies and processes. As such, the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary's formal education and experience with the foreign entity resulted in 
knowledge that is either special or advanced. 
In sum, despite claiming that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is both "special" and 
"advanced," the Petitioner does not support these claims with clarification as to why specialized 
knowledge is required to perform her assigned job duties, nor does it explain precisely how and when 
the Beneficiary attained knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. Accordingly, in light of the 
evidentiary deficiencies described herein, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge or that she was employed abroad and would be employed in the 
United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal will be dismissed. 
6