dismissed L-1B Case: Custom Furniture Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22721797 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP. 27, 2022 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, a designer and manufacturer of custom kitchens and furniture, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a project designer in the United States under the L-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish 
that: 1) the Beneficiary's position abroad involved specialized knowledge, 2) the proposed U.S . position 
would involve specialized knowledge, and 3) the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the 
intended position in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary is one of only two employees working for the 
company with his level of knowledge of its products and processes related to the design, manufacture , 
and sale of custom kitchens . The Petitioner contends the submitted evidence demonstrates that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is completely different and unique when compared to his colleagues in the 
company and similarly placed workers in the industry . 
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)(l5)(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 is a newly established branch office of an international group of 
companies engaged in the development and sale of interior design, primarily high-end cabinetry, and 
custom kitchens. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary began his employment with the foreign 
employer in April 2019 1 at the company' sl loffice not long after completing a master's degree in 
product design. The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary was tasked with creating custom kitchen 
and product designs, promoting interest in the company's brand, communicating both to clients, and 
reporting on and forecasting the status of projects. The Petitioner asserted that this allowed the 
Beneficiary to obtain intimate knowledge of the company's design principles and aesthetics, sales 
processes, technical capabilities, innovative materials, values, complex pricing models, and culture. 
The Petitioner also indicated that the company has a studio and manufacturing facility in I I where 
it trains designers in the "art of storytelling and craftmanship that is unique to the [company's] brand" 
not practiced outside of this facility. Further, the Petitioner emphasized the company's "confidential 
and proprietary sales and pricing method," including specialized processes related to project enquiry, 
project briefing, estimating, technical design, manufacturing, delivery, installation, and completion. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would continue as a project designer in the United States, but 
that a majority of his time there would be devoted to "teaching and training new designers how to sell, 
collaborate with clients, and work with the personnel inl Ito finalize custom-made design[s]." 
Later in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted the company's 
"sales bible," a series of documents reflecting a company roadmap for selling and collecting client 
requirements and asserted that the Beneficiary's knowledge of these processes demonstrated his 
specialized knowledge. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had been "trained extensively" on 
these sales processes and claimed they are "different and unique compared to others in the sector." The 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was one of only two people in the entire company who 
"complete[ d] the in-house training" and acquired knowledge of its "sales bible." In addition, the 
Petitioner emphasized its "exceptional design services" noting that to meet client needs it was required 
to "develop a fully custom design with new innovative details," further pointing to the company's 
"design approach" and "sales process." 
The Petitioner further indicated that it "trains all staff in-house" including them taking a "trip to our 
workshops inl Ito learn how our manufacturing process[es] work." The Petitioner explained that 
"over three years [the Beneficiary] has learnt and built upon his in-house training to be able to design 
and deliver our client demands." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's knowledge of "workshops, 
technical designers and project managers combined with the understand[ing] of how to interact with our 
discerning clients takes years to understand." In addition, the Petitioner asserted that the design and 
sales of its products "is a very different proposition" compared to other kitchens provided in the 
1 The petition was filed on September 7, 2021. The Beneficiary's proffered salary in the United States was listed in the 
petition as $45,000, with additional undisclosed benefits and commissions. 
2 
marketplace, noting that others within the industry assemble solutions "from a list of premade units" 
while each of its designs are custom manufactured. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's project design function includes aspects of both 
its sales and designer roles, requiring specialized knowledge not possessed by others within the 
organization or the industry. The Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary received a master's degree 
in product design, and industrial and project design, and that he previously worked for another company 
in the industry as a design intern and project manager. The Petitioner again asserts that the Beneficiary 
has been "extensively trained" on the company's products and processes and states that they are 
"completely different and unique" compared to others in the industry. In addition, the Petitioner states 
that the Beneficiary's knowledge about the company's products and processes can only be gained 
through employment abroad and cannot be easily transferred or taught, except through its training 
provided inl I The Petitioner indicates that other companies in the industry do not provide "the 
bespoke craftsmanship and specialized attention to each client's project." Again, the Petitioner contends 
that the Beneficiary "is one of only two employees who has received the specialized knowledge to 
perform his job." 
III. 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. § l 184(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(l)(l)(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 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary holds knowledge of the company's business 
and its design and sales functions not possessed by others within the organization, noting he is only 
one of two within the organization to have this level of knowledge. 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 emphasizes 
several times on the record that the Beneficiary has been "trained extensively." However, the 
Petitioner did not specifically describe the Beneficiary's training, other than indicating generally that 
it took place in I and that it can only be provided at this location. The Petitioner did not indicate 
how long the Beneficiary's training lasted and whether it involved hands on work, coursework, 
observation, or other activities. Further, the Petitioner does not articulate how many others within the 
organization completed this training or submit supporting documentation to substantiate the 
Beneficiary's completion of this training. The lack of this evidence is particularly noteworthy since 
the Petitioner also indicated that it "trains all staff in-house," including "a trip to our workshops in 
I I to learn how our manufacturing process[es] work." Therefore, not only has the Petitioner not 
sufficiently described and documented the Beneficiary's training, but it also did not indicate how it is 
greatly developed when compared to his colleagues. 
Similarly, the Petitioner does not explain the specific projects on which the Beneficiary worked during 
his approximately 1 7 months with the foreign employer, nor did it indicate how they contributed to 
his claimed advanced knowledge. This lack of explanation and evidence is significant since the 
Petitioner submitted marketing materials highlighting several projects the foreign employer completed 
in the _____ and elsewhere; however, there is no indication as to whether the Beneficiary 
was involved in these projects, nor a description of the projects he was engaged in that allowed him to 
obtain knowledge greatly beyond that of his colleagues. Further, the Petitioner asserted that the 
Beneficiary "built upon his in-house training to be able to design and deliver our clients demands" and 
that he held knowledge of "workshops, technical designers and project managers combined with the 
understand[ing] of how to interact with our discerning clients." However, the Petitioner provided no 
explanation of, or documentation to corroborate, the projects the Beneficiary completed or the clients 
he worked with to build this claimed level of advanced knowledge. 
Likewise, the Petitioner discussed several company processes in which the Beneficiary had developed 
advanced knowledge, including its design principles and aesthetics, sales process, technical capabilities, 
innovative materials, values, proprietary sales and pricing method, and culture. It further mentioned the 
company's specialized processes related to project enquiry, project briefing, estimating, technical 
design, manufacturing, delivery, installation, and completion. However, although the Petitioner submits 
marketing materials and its "sales bible" that generally indicate it has internal processes for marketing, 
sales, and other functions, it did not sufficiently explain these processes in its support letters, nor did it 
4 
specifically describe how the Beneficiary obtained knowledge of these processes that is greatly 
developed beyond that of his colleagues. For instance, as noted, the Petitioner did not detail and 
document the nature of the Beneficiary's training and specifically describe the projects on which worked 
while employed abroad. 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 through the provision of 
probative comparisons. 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 
organization. The Petitioner only vaguely indicated that the Beneficiary "is one of only two employees 
who has received the specialized knowledge to perform his job." However, the Petitioner did not identify 
the other individual in the organization sharing the Beneficiary's level of knowledge or provide specifics 
related to this employee's training and experience to effectively demonstrate how the Beneficiary and 
this colleague are set apart. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart in support of the RFE reflecting that the Beneficiary 
reported to a design director and that the Beneficiary supervised a design manager overseeing four "CAD 
technicians," a "creative design" employee overseeing two subordinates, and a project management 
employee supervising four project managers. Although the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary's 
role is "very senior," there is little supporting evidence to substantiate this role, such as evidence of him 
acting at this level within the organizational structure and overseeing several other managers and their 
subordinates. Further, the Petitioner provides no specific information on the education and experience 
of the several other colleagues listed in the organizational chart to demonstrate that his knowledge is 
greatly developed in comparison. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided two conflicting organizational charts, the first in support of the 
petition questionably did not reflect the Beneficiary's place within the organization nor that he acted as 
a manager overseeing several employees, while the chart provided in response to the RFE showed him 
in a senior position overseeing several other subordinate managers and their subordinates. The first chart 
further showed that the design manager reported directly to the design director, while the second chart 
indicated that the design manager was now the Beneficiary's subordinate and that the Beneficiary 
reported directly to the design director. The Petitioner provides no explanation for the material 
difference in these organizational charts submitted only about a month apart from the date the petition 
was filed to the response to the RFE. 
The lack of specific comparisons between the Beneficiary and his similarly placed colleagues is 
noteworthy since the record indicates that there are several others within the greater organization with 
extensive knowledge of the company's products and processes. For instance, the Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary works closely with other designers and architects on client projects; however, there is 
little detail as to the experience and education of these colleagues to indicate how his knowledge is 
greatly developed in comparison. In addition, in submitted marketing materials, the chief executive 
5 
officer (CEO) pointed to the company's establishment of an affiliated project management company in 
2006 "to serve interior designers and architects on luxury joinery projects in private homes." The CEO 
pointed to "a team of highly skilled project managers and technical designers" and noted that the 
company "doubled the highly skilled team to 45 artisans who are trained through an intensive four-year 
apprenticeship programme." However, again, the Petitioner provides no specific comparisons of the 
Beneficiary's knowledge and education to these colleagues discussed by the CEO to establish that his 
knowledge of the company's products and processes is greatly developed in comparison. Further, the 
Beneficiary had only approximately 17 months of experience with the Petitioner when the petition was 
filed, while the "apprenticeship programme" offered to many of his colleagues involves four years of 
working with the company's specific products and processes, leaving uncertainty as to whether his 
knowledge would be greatly developed in comparison. 
Further, the Petitioner provided biographies for several of its executives on its website, including its 
"business and design director" describing him as an "award winning furniture designer" and noting his 
experience in the industry since 2002. Similarly, the biographies discussed an estimating director 
working with the company since 2011 who "delivered £1M+ bespoke joinery packages worldwide," a 
design manager who had worked with the organization since 2017, and an operations manager who had 
been with the company since 2014 with "experience delivering bespoke joinery packages of up to 
£1.5M." Although the Petitioner need not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge exceeds that 
of the company's executives and managers to demonstrate that it is specialized, the substantially greater 
experience of these individuals within the company leaves question as to its assertion that he is only one 
of two within the organization with his level of knowledge of the company's products and processes. 
The Petitioner also does not provide this level of detail with respect to the Beneficiary's experience, 
namely, by discussing the projects he worked on and how they contributed to his advanced knowledge. 
It is also reasonable to conclude that there were members of the organization responsible for developing 
the products, processes, and trainings that the Beneficiary gained knowledge of and completed, leaving 
even further question as to the Petitioner's vague assertion that he is only one of two with his level of 
knowledge within the organization. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in the 
record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Although the Beneficiary's education and 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. Without this evidence, it appears 
likely that there are many others with similar knowledge and experience, particularly since the 
organization employs several other executives, managers, designers, architects, and other employees 
who likely have high levels of knowledge of the company's products and processes. Although we have 
little doubt that the Beneficiary is likely a valuable employee, 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. 
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 the Beneficiary's knowledge can be considered special as defined by the 
regulations. First, as we discussed at length in the previous section, the Petitioner does not clearly 
describe or document the nature of the Beneficiary's knowledge, such as by explaining and sufficiently 
documenting the specific nature of his knowledge, including the "extensive training" he received and 
the significant projects he worked on while employed by the foreign employer. The Petitioner also 
submits conflicting evidence leaving question as to whether the Beneficiary's training could be 
considered "extensive," including evidence indicating that all of its employees receive "in-house 
training" inl I and that many others complete a four-year apprenticeship there to learn about its 
products and processes. 
Even if we accept that the Petitioner holds knowledge of specific proprietary products, methods, and 
processes, 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 comparison. 
The Petitioner contends that its products and services are uncommon in the industry due to its "unique 
system." The Petitioner asserts it is the only company in the industry that custom designs and 
manufactures kitchen and furniture solutions, whereas "the standard model for design and selling 
kitchens .. .is to assemble design solutions from a list of premade units." However, the Petitioner 
provides little supporting evidence beyond its assertions to substantiate that its products, processes, 
and its practice of custom designing kitchens is uncommon in the industry In fact, the Petitioner 
emphasizes the Beneficiary's prior experience with I as a design intern and 
_____ as a project manager. Likewise, the biographies submitted for the company's 
executives and managers reference their prior design experience in the industry, as well as master's 
level educations in design. This includes the Beneficiary's claimed subordinate "design manager," 
who is noted as having "perfect[ ed] his skills at PRODL by ensuring the highest level of standards in 
customer service and project management." Therefore, the submitted evidence appears to indicate 
7 
that the Beneficiary's level of education and experience is likely common for designers within the 
custom kitchen industry, and without evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that other 
companies have similar proprietary methods with respect to their products, processes, manufacturing, 
and sales techniques. For example, the Petitioner refers many times to its "sales bible" and the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of the processes and techniques included therein; however, it did not 
specifically explain or document how these sales processes and techniques are uncommon within the 
industry. 
The Petitioner did not specifically compare the Beneficiary's education, experience, and training to 
similarly placed designers in the industry. The submitted evidence appears to suggest that the 
Beneficiary's level of education is likely common for similarly placed designers. For instance, the 
provided biographies indicated that each manager had a master's level education in design, suggesting 
that many within the industry have this level of education as well, including the Beneficiary. In 
addition, the provided biographies reflect higher levels of experience when compared to the 
Beneficiary's relatively modest 17 months of experience with the foreign employer. 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 designers who have completed master's 
levels of education in design, who have approximately two and a half years' experience in their 
company's products and processes, and who have intimate knowledge of client requirements. 
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. 
8