dismissed L-1B Case: Heavy Equipment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-N.A. LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 11, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in heavy equipment sales and leasing, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as its service manager under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. 1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(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, that he has been 
employed abroad in a position that was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge, or 
that he will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision does not reflect consideration of all 
relevant evidence submitted in support of the petition, and does not give sufficient weight to 
affidavits provided by the Beneficiary and the petitioning company's manager. The Petitioner 
maintains that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, and that he has been and would be 
employed in a specialized knowledge capacity.2 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
1 The Petitioner marked on the Fonn 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that it is a new office. The tenn "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)( I )(ii)(F). However, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner had been doing business for more than one 
year at the time of filing in May 2017. The Director did not apply the regulation governing new office L-1 B petitions at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(vi) and we agree that such provision was inapplicable here. 
2 The Petitioner also states at times that the Beneficiary has been and would be employed in a "managerial role." The 
Petitioner requested that the Beneficiary be granted L-1 B classification, rather than L-1 A classification, which allows a 
corporation to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to work temporarily in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. As such, we will focus on whether the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge. 
Matter of S-NA. LLC 
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)(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). 
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 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(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is the subsidiary of a Chinese company that manufactures heavy construction and 
mining equipment such as excavators, rock drilling equipment, forklifts, pavement machinery, and 
hydraulic components. The record indicates that the Petitioner's group has over 4000 employees and 
sells its equipment in 60 countries worldwide. The Petitioner states that its parent company has 
conducted business in the United States since 2008, and established the petitioning company in 2014 
as its first U.S. subsidiary. 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary in the position of service manager at an annual salary 
of $60,000 and states that it has employed him in this position since January 2015.3 The Beneficiary 
joined the Petitioner's parent company as a quality controller in 2007 and assumed the position of 
after-sales service manager in 2010, performing duties that are similar to those he will perform in the 
United States. The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary's duties abroad included service 
management of overseas sales of heavy equipment in multiple countries and oversight of service staff. 
The Petitioner stated on the petition that the U.S. position will involve the same responsibility in North 
America, and will include obtaining shipment of heavy equipment parts, handling parts inventory, 
managing service and parts budgets, and coordinating with U.S. management and affiliates in China. 
3 The Petitioner filed this petition in May 2017. Although the Petitioner indicates that it has served as the Beneficiary's 
employer since January 2015, he did not spend any time in the United States in 2015, and therefore has more than one 
continuous year of full-time employment abroad in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(3)(iii). At the time of filing, the Beneficiary was in the United States as a 8-1 temporary visitor for business. 
2 
.
Matter ofS-NA. LLC 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
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, 
equipment, or methodologies that is truly distinct or uncommon compared to other similarly 
employed workers in the industry or knowledge that is advanced compared to other workers in the 
company. The Director emphasized that the Petitioner did not sufficiently document how the 
Beneficiary's education, training and experience have resulted in specialized knowledge, and noted 
that the Petitioner's explanation of the claimed specialized knowledge was lacking in detail. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "ignored evidence contained in the documents 
provided," and refers specifically to affidavits submitted by the Beneficiary and by the Petitioner's 
manager, The Petitioner maintains that these statements, in combination with the 
Beneficiary's "resume, technical training and experience" provide "a picture of a person far more 
experience[d] and knowledge[able] th[a]n a mere foreign corporate sales or service manager for 
heavy equipment." In support of the appeal, the Petitioner submits copies of what appear to be 
training certificates, but does not provide English translations4 or explain the relevance of the 
submitted evidence. 
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 has been employed abroad in a position 
involving specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
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. 
Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary possesses both special knowledge of its heavy 
equipment products and related services, and advanced knowledge of its internal processes and 
procedures for parts inventory and service management. 
4 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03.2(b )(3). The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the 
translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English . Id. 
3 
.
Matter of S-NA . LLC 
A. Special Knowledge 
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 specialized. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge of its heavy equipment products 
and the servicing of this equipment, along with associated activities such as inventory and spare 
parts operations. However, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation or evidence to 
support its claim that the Beneficiary's knowledge is truly distinct or uncommon in the Petitioner's 
industry. It did not provide documentation describing either its products or its parts and servicing 
operations, nor did it describe in detail the nature of the specialized knowledge required for a service 
manager position within this company. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a 
beneficiary's duties involve specialized knowledge, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply 
be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In fact, the Petitioner's initial statement in support of this petition said very little regarding the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties or his claimed specialized knowledge. The statement was in the form 
of an affidavit from its manager, and primarily referenced a separate L-lA nonimmigrant 
petition filed on behalf. He mentioned that he hired the Beneficiary as service manager 
"to develop business and provide service and parts to customers in the United States," and noted that 
the Beneficiary has met with customers, ordered and catalogued parts, maintained inventory, 
communicated with the parent company regarding service and part issues, and serviced existing 
equipment. Finally, stated that the Beneficiary "has significant and specialized 
experience and training necessary to do this work," and noted that "[h]is technical familiarity with 
[the Petitioner's] excavation and related machinery is essential to [the Petitioner's] operations." A 
petitioner's statement alone may be persuasive evidence if it is detailed, specific, and credible. 
However, the Petitioner's statement here lacked the necessary detail to meet the Petitioner's burden 
of proof. 
The Petitioner also provided a copy of the Beneficiary's resume, in which he notes his bachelor's 
degree in mechanical design and automation, and his experience in "production technology, after­
sales service, technical support, spare part sales." However, the resume, like the Petitioner's 
statement, was not sufficiently detailed to establish that the Beneficiary has acquired knowledge 
through his education, training, and experience that would be uncommon among similarly employed 
workers in the heavy equipment industry. 
Without information to differentiate its products or service operations, the Petitioner has not shown 
that the knowledge needed to provide after-sales service and parts and inventory management is 
truly different from what would be held by other experienced service managers working in its 
4 
.
Matter of S-NA. LLC 
industry. In fact the record indicates that the company "manufactures equipment with the global 
marketplace in mind, using industry standard components that are trusted around the world." The 
Petitioner did not explain what specialized knowledge is needed to service and order parts for 
equipment that is based on industry standards, or why the knowledge of its specific machinery could 
not be readily transferred to a similarly educated and experienced worker in the industry. 
We note that the Director requested relevant information in a request for evidence (RFE) that would 
have assisted in making a determination regarding the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge, 
such as additional details regarding the specific nature of the industry and the Petitioner's products 
or services; the length of training or experience required to perform the stated duties; how the 
knowledge required to support its products is different from that generally found in the industry; 
how much training the Beneficiary received in order to perform the duties of the position; personnel 
or in-house training records evidencing the Beneficiary's training; information regarding the number 
of other employees who have received similar training; and detailed descriptions of the Beneficiary's 
current and proposed duties explaining which specific duties require specialized knowledge. While 
the Petitioner responded to the RFE, it did not include most of the requested information. 
To the extent that the Petitioner addressed the requests made in the RFE, it responded in an affidavit 
from the Beneficiary. With respect to his education, training and work experience, the Beneficiary 
reiterated that he has a bachelor's degree, and that he has worked for the Petitioner's group of 
companies since 2007, initially as a quality controller, and later as an after sales service manager. 
With respect to his training, the Beneficiary noted that he and "are the individuals the 
[foreign entity's] corporate office has prepared, training and assigned," to the U.S. subsidiary, but he 
did not elaborate on the nature or length of this training, or provide records or any other type of 
confirmation of his completion of such training from the "corporate office." While completion of 
company-specific training can support a claim of specialized knowledge, the Petitioner must still 
establish that the training conveyed knowledge that is not common in the industry and knowledge 
that could not be easily imparted to similarly qualified employees from outside the company. 
Without this evidence, we cannot determine how long it would take a trained mechanical engineer 
with similar qualifications to acquire the knowledge needed to perform the duties of a service 
manager within the Petitioner's group. 
In fact, the only training the Beneficiary identified in any detail was related to various third-party 
engines and hydraulic equipment which are presumably used in the Petitioner's products. 
Specifically, the Beneficiary stated that he completed "specialized training" in and 
engines and hydraulics between 2010 and 2013. It appears that the untranslated 
certificates submitted on appeal are intended to document this training. Because the Petitioner did 
not submit a properly certified English language translation of the document, we cannot 
meaningfully determine whether the untranslated material thus supports the Petitioner's claims. 
Further, the Petitioner did not establish how the Beneficiary's training in third-party engines and 
components conveyed specialized knowledge that is specific to the petitioning organization and its 
products. As noted, the Petitioner indicates that it uses industry standard components in its heavy 
equipment and sells its equipment in 60 countries. Absent some explanation of how or whether its 
5 
Matter of S-NA. LLC 
own products are differentiated, we cannot make any meaningful comparison between the 
Beneficiary's knowledge and the knowledge held by other similarly-employed workers in the 
industry, and cannot conclude that his knowledge is truly special. The Petitioner has not indicated 
that only employees who have been trained within the group are able to service or order parts for its 
products, nor has it claimed that it employs its own service personnel in all countries where its 
products are sold. 
Although the Petitioner emphasizes that it is still a new subsidiary and requires the transfer of 
internal personnel to fully set up the U.S. organization, the Petitioner also indicates that the parent 
company's products have been sold in the United States since 2008, despite the fact that there were 
no domestic sales, service, or spare parts operations prior to 2014. Therefore, it appears based on the 
facts presented that distributors and service personnel from outside the company have likely been 
selling and supporting the group's heavy equipment products to date, which undermines the 
Petitioner's claim that only an employee with specialized knowledge gained within the company 
would be able to perform the proposed duties. 
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 the company-specific knowledge would 
be difficult to impart to a similarly experienced worker who is familiar with the types of heavy 
equipment manufactured and sold by the Petitioner's group. 
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 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. 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 the length of his tenure with the company and noting that his current and proposed roles 
involve or would involve some supervisory and training responsibilities and responsibility for 
coordinating inventory and spare parts operations. However, it did not provide any information 
regarding other service managers working abroad, such as information regarding their training, 
professional background, and length of experience. Despite his managerial job title, we cannot 
determine that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced in relation to the petitioning group's other 
6 
Matter of S-NA. LLC 
employees if we have no information regarding those employees' relative knowledge and 
experience. 
The Petitioner relies in part on the Beneficiary's "managerial" role in support of its claim that his 
knowledge of its internal processes and procedures is advanced. It also suggests that his knowledge 
would be advanced in relation to other U.S. employees because it does not currently employ another 
service manager in the United States. However, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary 
possesses advanced knowledge of company processes and procedures, and not merely a relatively 
senior position. The Petitioner did not provide evidence of any training he completed in company 
processes and procedures upon being hired by the foreign entity or explain any processes or 
procedures in which he may possess advanced knowledge. While we do not doubt that he is familiar 
with internal processes for managing inventory and spare parts, the Petitioner did not provide details 
or supporting evidence that would establish that his knowledge is advanced within the company, or 
that the processes and procedures themselves could not be easily imparted to another person with 
relevant work experience in inventory and spare parts management. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not submitted information that would allow us to compare the Beneficiary 
to other similarly employed workers within the organization. While it is more likely than not that 
the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced relative to any recently hired service employees in the 
United States, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim that his knowledge of the 
company's products, services and processes as a whole is advanced in comparison to other members 
of the company's global service and spare parts organization. The record is simply deficient in this 
regard. 
Although the Petitioner considers the Beneficiary to be a valuable employee, it has not sufficiently 
shown that his knowledge of company processes and procedures is advanced compared to other 
similarly employed workers involved in the service 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, or whether he was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity, or in a position that involved specialized knowledge. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-N.A. LLC, ID# 1398496 (AAO Sept. 11, 2018)