dismissed L-1B Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 27, 2023 In Re: 29321133 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker) 
The Petitioner is an aviation maintenance and repair company that seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
temporarily in the position of "airman instructor" under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that: 1) the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer have a qualifying relationship; 
and 2) that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and was employed abroad and would be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge. Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the qualifying 
relationship issue. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not 
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 
see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
I. LAW 
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 10l(a)(l5)(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. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he has been employed abroad and will be employed in the United 
States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 1 
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. 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if they have: (1) a "special" knowledge of the 
petitioning organization's product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" 
level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the petitioning organization. Section 
214(c)(2)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 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 their 
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 
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 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 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
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 claims that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, but 
it does not identify the nature of such knowledge, despite having been asked to do so in a previously 
issued request for evidence (RFE). The RFE also pointed to the distinction between "special" and 
"advanced" knowledge and instructed the Petitioner to specify whether the Beneficiary's knowledge 
is special, thus involving knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and their 
application in international markets, or whether the knowledge is advanced, thus involving knowledge 
of the petitioning organization's processes and procedures. 
In response, the Petitioner did not provide the requested information about its organization's services 
or its process and procedures to explain why specialized knowledge is required to assume the 
Beneficiary positions abroad and in the United States. Rather, the Petitioner provided a general 
description of its operation, stating that it is as an aviation maintenance and repair business whose 
chief function will be to provide "[q]ualified [m]anpower and [t]raining for new personnel in the area 
of [a]ircraft [m]aintenance." The Petitioner also discussed the Beneficiary's role with the foreign 
entity, stating that the Beneficiary has been working as a ground instructor since January 2021 and 
claiming that he has "all the required training ... as well as practical experience with the equipment 
oflarge airlines and [c]orporate [a]viation." 2 Although the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's flight 
training record and summary, the training is shown as having taken place in between October 7 and 
October 15, 2022, thus only preceded the filing of this petition by approximately one week. As such, 
the training record does not establish that the Beneficiary acquired specialized knowledge that he then 
used during his employment abroad for at least one year prior to the instant petition's date of filing. 
In sum, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary completed training that resulted in specialized 
knowledge that he then used in the course of his employment foreign employment and which he would 
use in his proposed U.S. position. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary has worked for the foreign entity for nearly 
three years and "has demonstrated specialized knowledge in the [c]ommercial [a]viation [f]ield." The 
Petitioner highlights the Beneficiary's credentials as a U.S. FAA and Costa Rican airline transport 
pilot "with several thousand [f]light [h]ours [e]xperience." The Petitioner describes the Beneficiary 
as "a very well[-]experienced instructor in [ s ]everal airplane types" and claims that the Beneficiary 
"knows all our politics and company procedures in order to offer a high class service to our new 
customers." 
Despite highlighting the Beneficiary's work history and qualifications as an experienced airline pilot, 
the Petitioner still has not identified a product or service within its organization to explain how the 
2 Although the Director referred to a list of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties in response to the RFE, the exhibit index 
that accompanied the RFE response does not list a job duty breakdown among the response exhibits. The exhibit index 
lists a "continuous employment letter," which states that the Beneficiary assumed the position of ground instructor since 
January 20, 2021, and confirms that he has the required training and experience for this position. The index also lists a 
training curriculum and training summary, both of which were among the RFE response submissions. However, the index 
does not list a job duty breakdown and as such it does not appear one was included as part of the RFE response. 
3 
Beneficiary's knowledge is special. And although the Petitioner broadly references the Beneficiary's 
understanding of its organization's "politics and company procedures," it has not specified or 
described its organization's processes and procedures to explain how the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
"advanced." Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). The Petitioner has not 
explained how the knowledge that it claims is specialized is typically gained within its organization, 
nor has the Petitioner stated how and when the Beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
Given the evidentiary deficiencies discussed above, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary 
attained specialized knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services or its processes 
and procedures. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge or that he was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States 
in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
Accordingly, because the Petitioner has not articulated how the Beneficiary's knowledge is specialized 
or established when and how he obtained the knowledge that it deems specialized, we conclude that 
the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he was 
employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4