dismissed L-1B Case: Industrial Training

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21920328 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 27, 2022 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, a provider of industrial training and simulation services within the I I sector, seeks 
to employ the Beneficiary temporarily in the position of 'I I-Americas" under the 
L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101 (a)(l 5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110 l(a)(15)(L). 
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 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-1 B 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)(l5)(L) of the Act The 
petitioner must also establish thatthe 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 on a global scale to provides training 
and simulation services through technology and traditional training methods to "enhance the skills, 
knowledge, and performance of I sector personnel." The Petitioner describes the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer as "the U.K. 's largest and leading ___________ and 
safety training provider" and credits the Beneficiary with the "successful development and 
implementation of a robust sales and business strategy to grow revenue and throughput in the 
I lsector." The Petitioner points to the Beneficiary's role as the organization's "first and 
onlyl lead" and his oversight of "all I I-related projects." The Petitioner also 
highlights the Beneficiary's participation as a panelist in "the largest! I conference 
in the Western Hemisphere," indicating that these roles are indicative of an individual possessing 
specialized knowledge. 
III. 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. 
As a threshold issue, we must detennine 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 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, dete1mining 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 expe1iise 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 
1 The Petitioner does not claim thatthe Beneficiary was employed a broad in an executive ormanagerialcapacity. 
2 
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 dete1mination 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 submitted a supporting cover letter claiming that the Beneficiary 
has specialized knowledge, more specifically, that his knowledge is "special" with respect to "the 
organization's operational setup, support, and direction on safety training projects 
and critical safety training operations." However, the Petitioner did not elaborate on the operational 
setup or support of its organization, nor did it offer specifics about its organization's safety training 
projects and safety operations to explainhowtheyare special and why developingandmarketingthem 
requires specialized knowledge. Likewise, the Petitioner referred to the Beneficiary as a "leading 
subject matter expert" in training and course curricula within the organization and within "the 
I I industry as a whole," but it did not offer information about the course curricula to explain 
why a specialized knowledge individual is needed to implement that curricula into training projects 
that are developed and marketed to clients within the I I industry. 
Fmiher, the Petitioner pointed to the job duties the Beneficiary perfmmed and copies of presentations 
he authored about the company' sl I services, asserting that the duties and presentations 
serve as evidence that the Beneficiary was employed in a specialized knowledge capacity for at least 
one year. However, the Petitioner did not adequately support this claim with information disclosing 
when the Beneficiary attained the knowledge that is claimed to be specialized or details about the 
process for acquiring such knowledge. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted evidentiary deficiencies that precluded approval 
of the petition. Namely, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not explain the nature of 
specialized knowledge that was required to perform the Beneficiary's duties with the foreign entity or 
establish that specialized knowledge was required to perform those duties. The Director also pointed 
out that the Petitioner did not specify the requirements for attaining knowledge that is claimed to be 
specified nor off er sufficient evidence establishing how the Beneficiary obtained specialized 
knowledge of the organization's setup, support, and direction of its safety training projects and 
operations and how long it took to attain that level of knowledge. 
The Petitioner's response contains a statement explaining that the Beneficiary is responsible for 
developing and implementing "a robust sales and business strate "and "occu ies a strategic sales 
and development role with key focus on the and 
market." However, it is unclear how the Beneficiary's knowledge of th . an d market 
establishes that his knowledge is specific to the petitioning organization's products or services. 
Likewise, although the Petitioner referred to the Beneficiary's "high level knowledge of the training 
3 
curricula, course standards, technology, industry representatives, and service operations," it did not 
explain how knowledge of industry representatives was indicative of "special" knowledge of the 
organization's products or services. Further, because the Petitioner did not discuss the training 
curricula, course standards, or service operations with any specificity, or elaborate on the "technology" 
that was used, it did not adequately support the claim that specialized knowledge was required for the 
Beneficiary's position. 
The Petitioner also highlighted the Beneficiary's responsibilities, which included planning and 
developing projects, negotiating and implementing contracts, and designing courses, and asserted that 
the Beneficiary's ability to fulfill these responsibilities hinges on his "expertise" of the organization's 
"setup, support, and direction onl lsafety training projects." However, the Petitioner 
provided no insight about its organization's setup, support, or safety training projects and therefore it 
remains unclear what characteristics these elements embody that make specialized knowledge a 
required component of the Beneficiary's claimed '"expertise." Likewise, the Beneficiary's resume 
describes his role as one that focuses on "strategic sales and development" and involves establishing 
"business critical opportunities" with participants in the I I sector. Although we recognize 
that the Beneficiary's ability "to foster, build, and expand" the petitioning organization's training 
center services into new and developing markets is valuable to the Petitioner's business endeavors, 
this claim does not further our understanding of the nature of the Beneficiary's knowledge or the 
characteristics that qualify that knowledge as specialized. 
The Petitioner also emphasized that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is not easily 
transferrable, stating that a less experienced employee would need at least four years of job experience 
to attain a level of expertise that is comparable to that of the Beneficiary. However, the Petitioner did 
not disclose the duration of or the process for attaining the Beneficiary's level of knowledge, even 
though this evidentiary deficiency was specifically noted in the RFE. Although the Petitioner referred 
to the Beneficiary's 13 years of business development and sales management experience, only four of 
those years were spent working for the petitioning organization. Because specialized knowledge must 
pertain to the petitioning organization's products or services, it is therefore critical to establish that the 
knowledge claimed to be specialized was obtained during the Beneficiary's employment with the 
petitioning organization. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(D) ( qualifying "special" knowledge as 
knowledge that pertains to "the petitioning organization's" product or service). Here, given that nine 
of the Beneficiary's 13 years of work experience involved working outside of the petitioning 
organization, those nine years are not relevant for the purpose of determining how and when the 
Beneficiary acquired his claimed specialized knowledge, as knowledge that was acquired during that 
nine-year period did not pertain to the petitioning organization and would not result in specialized 
knowledge of this organization's products or services. 
Also, because the Beneficiary's employment abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity must have 
been for at least one year, it is critical for the Petitioner to establish the precise time frame of when the 
Beneficiary is deemed to have attained the level of knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. See 
section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. Without an understanding of when the purportedly specialized 
knowledge was attained, we cannot determine when the Beneficiary started using that knowledge and 
thus, we cannot conclude that the knowledge was used for at least one year in the course of the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity. The Petitioner claims that the 
Beneficiary's specialized knowledge was obtained "through his more than four years of continuous 
4 
work ... leading and developing this specific sector of the company's service offerings." However, 
this claim is ambiguous and offers no insight as to the precise period when the specialized knowledge 
was acquired. 
On appeal, the Petitioner seeks to clarify what it perceives as a "miscalculation of the duration" of the 
Beneficiary's foreign employment, asse1iing that the Beneficiary's employment in a specialized 
knowledge capacity did not begin in September 2021 and that his continuous employment as "Head 
of I has been ongoing since 201 7. In sum, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary spent 
"more than [four] years ... in a specialized knowledge capacity," which resulted in his gaining "special 
knowledge, experience, and skills" in the organization's! I training services. In other 
words, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary has been employed in a specialized knowledge 
capacity since he started working for the foreign entity in 2017. However, this claim leads to greater 
concerns as to how and when the Beneficiary gained the claimed specialized knowledge and whether 
that knowledge pertains specifically to the petitioning organization. Despite claiming that the 
Beneficiary has specialized knowledge of the petitioning organization's service offerings within the 
_____ sector, the Petitioner has not specified a path for how the knowledge was gained or 
demonstrated that there was a progression of knowledge over the course of the Beneficiary's 
employment with the Petitioner's foreign affiliate. If, at the time the Beneficiary assumed his position 
with the foreign entity, he already possessed knowledge that the Petitioner deems as specialized, we 
must then question whether the Beneficiary's knowledge pertained specifically to products or services 
offered by the petitioning organization. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(D). 
Further, the Petitioner highlights that the Beneficiary's role is not general and does not pertain broadly 
to sales, operations, or business development, but rather that his role requires "expertise of 
I I safety training projects," which the Petitioner deems "necessary" to gain "critical contacts 
within the I I industry." The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary's knowledge 
pertains to the petitioning organization's service offerings - namely, its safety training services within 
the sector. However, because the Petitioner has not expounded on any particular 
characteristics of the training services, it has not established that specialized knowledge is required to 
carry out the Beneficiary's role of developing and selling those services. 
As discussed above, we have considered the Beneficiary's experience with the petitioning 
organization, his role as creator of subject matter presentations and business strategies, and the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary is the only employee with a "high-level knowledge of the 
training curricula, course standards, technology, industry representatives, and service operations." 
While these factors indicate that the Beneficiary is a valuable employee within the organization, they 
do not serve as sufficient evidence that the knowledge the Beneficiary possesses with respect to the 
petitioning organization's services is specialized. 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 will be dismissed. 
5