dismissed L-1B Case: Dental Prosthetics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-D-L-USA INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 20, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which intends to manufacture and sell dental prosthetics, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a "Dental Lab Tech" in its new office 1 under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The L-lB classification allows a corporation or other legal entity 
(including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee with "specialized 
knowledge" to work temporarily in the United States. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he will be 
employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Beneficiary possesses, and 
the U.S. position requires, specialized knowledge of the company's products and processes that could 
not be transferred to another employee without significant economic inconvenience to the company. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked key evidence and misunderstood the nature of its 
industry. 
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 10l(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). 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F). 
Matter of D-D-L-USA Inc. 
If a beneficiary is coming in a specialized knowledge capacity to open a new office, the petitioner 
must submit evidence that it secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation, evidence that 
the new business entity is or will be a qualifying organization, and evidence that it has the financial 
ability to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United States. See 
generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(vi). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is the subsidiary of an Indian company described as the "largest and leading dental 
prostheses manufacturer in Asia." The parent company, which operates a 60,000 square foot 
manufacturing facility with 3500 employees, produces crowns, bridges, inlays, dentures, veneers and 
other products that meet U.S. Food and Drug Administration and international standards. The 
Petitioner was established in 2016 with the goal of manufacturing and selling dental products to 
clinicians in the United States. 
The Petitioner states that its parent company has employed the Beneficiary since 2006 in the following 
roles: Dental Technician Trainee, Ceramic Finishing (November 2006 to October 2007); Dental 
Technician, Ceramic Finishing (November 2007 to July 2015); Assistant Manager, Ceramic Finishing 
Department (July 2015 to July 2016); and Manager, Ceramic Finishing Department (July 2016 to the 
date of filing in June 2018). According to the Beneficiary's resume, he completed a "Diploma in 
Dental Lab Technician Course" in May 2016. 
The Petitioner now seeks to employ the Beneficiary in the position of "Dental Lab Tech" at an annual 
salary of $40,000, and indicates that he is one of four technicians it is seeking to transfer to set up and 
start production operations in the United States. The Petitioner indicated that this technician team will 
be reading prescriptions and specifications for dental prostheses; examining models and impressions; 
ascertaining designs; fabricating, altering, and repairing dentures, crowns, bridges, inlays and 
orthodontic devices; testing appliances using articulators and micrometers for conformance to 
specifications and accuracy of occlusion; evaluating functionality of teeth models; operating casting 
machines; utilizing digital impressions and CAD/CAM technology; replicating dental hard and soft 
tissues using hand tools; and communicating with clinicians to ensure quality. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The 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 in the United 
States. 
A beneficiary is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect 
to a company if the beneficiary has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in 
international markets or has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the 
company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). 
Specialized knowledge is also defined as knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning 
organization's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and 
2 
Matter of D-D-L-USA Inc. 
its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise m the 
organization's processes and procedures. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide adequate support for 
its claim that the Beneficiary has acquired special knowledge of the Petitioner's products, tools and 
methodologies that is truly distinct or uncommon compared to other similarly employed workers in 
the industry or advanced compared to other workers in the company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the denial decision incorrectly identified the Petitioner's industry 
as "orthodontics," which suggested that the Director did not fully review the submitted documentation. 
The Petitioner also provides additional statements describing its parent company's manufacturing 
processes and indicates that the Beneficiary completed an additional 57 weeks of training abroad that 
it had not mentioned previously. Finally, the Petitioner stresses that the Director did not consider the 
fact that the Petitioner is a startup company with no employees in the United States or consider the 
economic inconvenience the company would experience if it had to transfer the Beneficiary's 
knowledge to another employee at this stage of development. 
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 he would be employed in the United States in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
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, i.e., knowledge that 
is "special" or "advanced." 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 may be able to gain specialized knowledge within the organization, and explain how 
and when the individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
Here, the Petitioner's primary claim is that the Beneficiary possesses special knowledge of its 
products, manufacturing equipment, and production techniques based on his nearly 12 years of 
employment with its parent company. We will also address whether the evidence establishes that the 
Beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge. 
A. Special Knowledge 
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 
3 
Matter of D-D-L-USA Inc. 
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 
specialized. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge in ceramic finishing technology 
"and in the use of micro tools and instruments such as Micromotor and Articulators, Arti-fol, DFS Disc, 
Diamond Burs, Slow-speed motors and Attachments." However, the Petitioner has neither claimed nor 
provided evidence to establish that its dental prosthetic products, or the referenced tools, equipment, and 
technologies used to design and manufacture them, are different or uncommon in the industry, such that 
the Beneficiary here possesses knowledge that would not be readily transferred to another person trained 
as a dental laboratory technician. The Petitioner indicates that it obtains its equipment and raw materials 
from Germany and it does not claim to have developed its own manufacturing tools and equipment. The 
Petitioner's statements and evidence do not establish to what extent its dental lab technicians are required 
to use company-specific knowledge, rather than knowledge of how to operate third-party tools, 
equipment, and systems to make industry standard products. 
With respect to the parent company's dental prosthetic products and processes, the Petitioner describes 
them as "state-of-the-art" but otherwise does not attempt to differentiate either the final products or 
the methods used to produce them, from its competitors' products and methods. The Petitioner 
emphasizes that its parent company has been operating for many years, has an established clientele 
based in several countries, and uses the most advanced technology. However, the Petitioner's business 
plan describes several of its competitors' operations as being similarly well-established, international 
in scope, innovative, and advanced with respect to their techniques and products. 
Without information to differentiate its products, equipment, or techniques, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the knowledge needed to perform ceramic finishing work for its dental prosthetic products 
is truly different from what would be found among experienced dental lab technicians working with 
the same or similar tools and products in the Petitioner's industry. While the Petitioner indicates that 
the production of dental prosthetics requires technicians to possess a high degree of skill, it has not 
met its burden to explain how the Beneficiary was able to acquire knowledge and skills that are not 
generally held by others performing the same type of work. 
The Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary has completed extensive training within the company 
and therefore it met its burden to establish that his knowledge cannot be readily transferred from one 
person to another. The record reflects that the foreign entity hired the Beneficiary as a dental 
technician trainee in 2006. The foreign entity's general manager for quality assurance stated that the 
Beneficiary completed the company's "rigorous training program" which provides new technicians 
with "textbooks, trainers, training models, materials, and the instruments needed to learn specific 
skills." Specifically, he states that the training including six months of "induction training in Soft 
Skills, English Language, Introduction to Dental Materials, Applied Oral Anatomy, CAD/CAM, 
Aligners, Crowns, and Bridges." This training was followed by on-the-job training under supervision 
which included micro-tools and instruments (micro motors, articulators, Arti-fol, DFS Disc, Diamond 
Bur, Ball Bur, Flame Bur, Arotor, and Duplicate). The foreign entity's representative states that the 
4 
Matter of D-D-L-USA Inc. 
Beneficiary is able to produce "high quality dental products to the specifications from the dentist" and 
certifies him "as a highly skilled worker because of his mastery and unique skills." 
However, the fact that the Beneficiary received training and is "highly skilled" does not lead to a 
determination that he possesses specialized knowledge. The foreign entity's letter did not elaborate 
with respect to describing the Beneficiary's "unique skills" and we cannot determine how the training 
program he completed resulted in his possession of specialized knowledge of the Petitioner's products, 
techniques and other interests, rather than possession of the same skills possessed by any technician 
trained to perform ceramic finishing work in a dental laboratory. The record does not reflect that the 
Beneficiary had any prior education, training, or experience in the Petitioner's industry at the time he 
was hired. Specifically, his resume does not mention any employment prior to 2006, and it indicates 
that he did not obtain his academic qualification as a dental lab technician until 2016. 
Further, it is unclear whether all of the foreign entity's new hires, including experienced or 
credentialed dental laboratory technicians who are already trained in dental materials, oral anatomy, 
CAD/CAM, and the tools and equipment needed for ceramic finishing, must enter the company as 
trainees and complete a foll year of training in order to assume the dental lab tech position. This lack 
of clarity makes it difficult to evaluate the submitted training schedule as a measure of the actual 
training requirements for the position. The Petitioner's business plan indicates that it expects to 
employ 22 technicians in the United States within a few years and states that these employees will be 
expected to have "extensive lab experience and/or certification in dental lab technology." It does not 
appear that the company intends to implement a year-long training course for new hires to perform the 
same type of work the Beneficiary performed abroad, nor does it appear that the Beneficiary is 
expected to allocate a significant portion of his time to transferring company-specific knowledge to 
new hires. In fact, the Beneficiary's proposed duty description indicates that he will spend only 4% 
of his time training and supervising other technicians. If the Petitioner expects to hire qualified dental 
lab technicians from the U.S. workforce, this fact farther supports a finding that the position requires 
skills that are common among individuals who have received education or training to prepare them 
for this occupation. 
Overall, the Petitioner did not provide information that would allow us to compare the Beneficiary's 
relative training, education, knowledge, skills, and experience to that of other dental lab technicians 
who perform the same or similar type of work. It is also not clear whether the Petitioner regards all 
of the foreign entity's dental lab technicians as specialized knowledge employees, or whether it deems 
the Beneficiary to have special knowledge relative to his colleagues. The Petitioner highlights the fact 
that the Beneficiary was eventually promoted to an assistant manager position within the foreign 
entity's ceramic finishing department in 2015, and states that he has been the manager of that 
department since July 2016. 
However, the evidence submitted on appeal introduces an apparent inconsistency to the record, as the 
Petitioner now claims for the first time that the Beneficiary completed an additional 2384 hours of 
training ( approximately one year and seven weeks) between July 1, 2016, and October 31, 201 7, under 
the direct supervision of managers in the "DGM Quality Assurance" and CAD/CAM departments. 
The Petitioner does not explain how the Beneficiary simultaneously completed foll-time supervised 
training in these two departments while managing the ceramic finishing department. Nor has it 
5 
Matter of D-D-L-USA Inc. 
explained why it did not mention this training in any of the statements or documentation submitted in 
response to the Director's request for evidence, in which the Petitioner was specifically asked to 
provide evidence of the Beneficiary's "prior education, training and employment and an explanation 
of how that relates to the claimed specialized knowledge." The Petitioner must resolve this ambiguity 
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). 
While the Petitioner's primary claim is that the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge with respect to 
ceramic finishing technology and related tools, it now states that he completed this 2384 hours of 
additional training in "other specialties such as CAD Designing, Ceramic Modeling, Milling, 
Sintering, Dipping and Shading, and Splints." The Petitioner explains that his ability to contribute to 
multiple specialties is further evidence of his specialized knowledge and will make him a valuable 
addition to the U.S. company and valuable resource for new hires as it ramps up operations in the 
United States. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how this newly-claimed cross 
training contributes to the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge. 
The Petitioner indicates that the foreign entity has 32 departments, each responsible for a different 
stage of the production process, and states that "[e]ach department is considered a specialty." 
However, the Petitioner's proposed organizational chart indicates that it intends to produce the same 
products, on a smaller scale, with a single team of technicians, who, with the exception of the initial 
team transferred from India, would likely be hired from the U.S. workforce. The Petitioner's plan 
would not be feasible if it did not have access to trained U.S.-based dental lab technicians who are 
well-versed in various stages of the dental prosthetics design and development process. Rather, the 
evidence tends to support a finding that the Petitioner expects to hire production employees who are 
capable of performing various aspects of manufacturing the parent entity's products in the United 
States without undergoing extensive training. For this reason, we cannot determine that the 
Beneficiary's familiarity with multiple specialties within a dental laboratory is a characteristic that 
would make his knowledge different or uncommon among similarly employed workers in the industry. 
Further, as with the training that the Beneficiary received when he joined the company, the Petitioner 
has not explained that the Beneficiary's more recent training in 2016 and 2017 imparted knowledge 
that meets the standard of specialized knowledge. These newly claimed skills include digital scanning, 
oral scanning, 3D printing, CAD designing of crowns and bridges, milling using CNC machines, direct 
metal laser sintering, dipping and shading, and vacuum suction splints using German machines. The 
Petitioner has not explained how these skills or the knowledge required to work with these tools and 
technologies is distinct from what would commonly be held by a dental laboratory technician who 
works in the dental prosthetics industry. The industry overview in the Petitioner's business plan 
highlights the fact that there have been many technological innovations in the industry in recent years 
and it is now common for companies to use CAD/CAM systems and technologies, 3D printing, and 
dipping and shading techniques to produce better products. In addition, as discussed, it remains 
unclear how the Beneficiary completed this year-long, supervised full-time training program in other 
departments while managing his own department and this issue has not been resolved. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a specialized 
knowledge employee consistent with the USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-IB 
6 
Matter of D-D-L-USA Inc. 
Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. However, the 
Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge 
that is either special or advanced. While the Beneficiary may be filling a role beneficial to the 
Petitioner's competitiveness in the marketplace, this characteristic alone is not probative of his 
specialized knowledge. As noted in the memorandum, the "characteristics" listed by the Petitioner 
are only "factors that USCIS 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. 
Further, the Petitioner emphasizes that, due to the amount of training and experience required for the 
dental lab technician position, the knowledge could not easily be imparted to another employee 
without significant economic inconvenience to the company. However, as discussed, it is unclear how 
much training would actually be required for the dental lab technician role and the Petitioner has not 
shown how the training its parent company provides imparts skills that are not commonly known 
among other trained dental lab technicians. The record does not distinguish the parent company's 
products, tools, equipment, or production techniques from those found elsewhere in its industry. In 
fact, the Petitioner states that the technicians hired in the U.S. will be expected to have industry 
experience or a "certification in dental lab technology." If the requisite knowledge can be gained 
working with another employer in the industry, or through an academic or vocational program, then it 
is unclear how it rises to the level of a specialized knowledge position. 
We do not dispute that the Beneficiary is a skilled and experienced employee who has been and would 
be an asset to the company. There is no indication, however, that the beneficiary possesses knowledge 
that is distinct from that of any experienced technician who works in a dental prosthetics laboratory, 
or that the training he received would differentiate him from any other worker employed within the 
industry at-large. The Petitioner's preference to transfer one or more employees from abroad to set 
up its new office is noted, but it must still establish that the employees possess knowledge that is truly 
different or uncommon. Here, the Petitioner has not established that there is some characteristic of its 
products, tools, or techniques which requires its dental lab technicians to possess knowledge that is 
not generally known in its industry. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary acquired special 
knowledge that is different or uncommon compared to what is generally found among similarly 
employed workers in its industry, nor has it established that any company-specific knowledge he 
possesses would be difficult to impart to a similarly experienced worker who is familiar with the design 
and production of dental prosthetics. 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
We have also considered whether the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge. Because "advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and 
procedures, the Petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the Beneficiary has knowledge 
of or expertise in the organization's processes and procedures that is greatly developed or farther 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 
7 
Matter of D-D-L-USA Inc. 
from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. 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. 
The Petitioner has not clearly articulated a claim that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge, other 
than noting his lengthy experience with the company as a dental lab technician, and highlighting the 
fact that he assumed an assistant manager position in 2015, followed by a department manager position 
in 2016. With respect to his position as manager of the foreign entity's ceramic finishing department, 
we already discussed the Petitioner's claim on appeal that he was undergoing supervised full-time 
training in other departments for most of his tenure in the managerial role. This dual role as department 
manager and trainee has not been sufficiently explained and tends to undermine the Petitioner's claim 
that the Beneficiary has held a senior role that required advanced knowledge. 
Further, the Petitioner has not submitted information that would allow us to compare the Beneficiary 
to other similarly employed workers within the foreign entity. The Petitioner provided an 
organizational chart for the foreign entity, but the Petitioner has not attempted to show how the 
Beneficiary compares to other workers in the foreign entity's production operations in terms of 
education, knowledge, training, or experience. Therefore, the record does not support a finding that 
his knowledge of the company's manufacturing processes and related equipment as a whole is 
advanced in comparison to other members of the company's large manufacturing department. The 
record is simply deficient in this regard. 
Although the Petitioner considers the Beneficiary to be a valuable employee who excels at his position, 
it has not sufficiently shown that his knowledge of company processes and procedures is advanced 
compared to other similarly employed workers involved in the manufacture of the company's products 
or that he possesses special knowledge that is significantly different from what is generally held in the 
Petitioner's industry. 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses special or advanced 
knowledge, we need not address whether the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of D-D-L-USA Inc., ID# 3408506 (AAO June 20, 2019) 
8