dismissed L-1B Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-R-T- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 18,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of refrigerated trailers, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
maintenance and material supervisor under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification tor intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)( 15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ IIOI(a)(l5)(L). The L-IB classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
atliliate 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 involving specialized knowledge, or that he will be employed in a 
specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits supplementary evidence and asserts that the Director misapplied 
the law based on an incomplete review of the evidence, and reached a decision that is inconsistent 
with the record. The Petitioner maintains that its manufacturing process and technologies are unique 
in the industry and that the Beneficiary is qualified for L-1 B classification based on his possession of 
special and advanced knowledge in these areas. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. or in a capacity involving 
specialized knowledge, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. Section 10l(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. IJ. 
The relevant statutory definition states that 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 
.
Matter a,{ C-R-T- Inc. 
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). 
An individual L-1 B classification petition must be accompanied by evidence that: the beneficiary has 
been employed abroad in a position that was manageriaL executive, or involved specialized 
knowledge for at least one continuous year in the three years preceding the tiling of the petition; the 
beneficiary is coming to work in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer. and. the beneficiary's prior education, 
training and employment qualities them to perfom1 the intended services in the United States. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the Beneficiary's duties are typical of a worker 
employed in an electrical engineering technology occupation and that the record did not establish 
that he 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 
advanced compared to other workers in the company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director did not consider all relevant evidence in 
reaching her decision and erred by comparing the Beneficiary's duties to those of "electrical 
engineering technicians" without evaluating the Petitioner's specific claims regarding the specialized 
knowledge required to perform these duties within the petitioning organization. In addition, the 
Petitioner contests the Director's finding that its submissions did not describe the claimed 
specialized knowledge with specificity or explain how such knowledge is gained within the 
organization. It maintains that the totality of the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge that is fundamentally different from that possessed by similar workers in the 
industry. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a specialized knowledge 
employee consistent with guidance provided in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USC IS) 
Policy Memorandum PM-602-011 1, L-IB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17. 2015), 
https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. Finally, the Petitioner submits an expert opinion 
letter from who concludes that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge of 
the petitioning organization's "unique tools, processes, and products." 
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 
2 
.
Matter o_fC-R-T- Inc. 
involving specialized knowledge or would be employed m the United States m 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. Under the statute. 
a beneficiary is considered to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: ( 1) a "'speciar· 
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. 
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 and advanced knowledge of 
its manufacturing technologies, processes, and procedures gained through training and hands-on 
experience during his eight years of employment with its Chinese affiliate, where he currently serves 
as "Electrician Group Lead." 
A. Background 
The Petitioner, part of a multinational group based in China, manufactures and assembles 
refrigerated and dry van trailers for sale to North American customers. Specifically. the Petitioner 
states that it uses the group's technology and proprietary manufacturing process to produce the 
industry's leading refrigerated trailers. The Beneficiary currently works as an electrician group lead 
for the Petitioner's Chinese affiliate, which specializes in manufacturing reefer and insulated 
containers destined for both the U.S. and European markets. 
The foreign entity builds reefer components in China and ships them to the United States. which 
assembles and produces the refrigerated trailers in its California and Indiana facilities using the 
company's ' manufacturing process. The Petitioner explains 
that the process has manufacturing and shipping advantages. as the concept requires less floor 
space at the destination manufacturing facility and allows the Petitioner to better control fluctuations 
in demand. As such, the Petitioner notes that its Chinese affiliate designs products. techniques. 
equipment, processes and procedures that are unique to its model and the result of research and 
.
Matter (?fC-R-T- Inc. 
development that led to patented technologies and protected trade secrets that are not available to its 
competitors in the industry. 
1 
In a supporting letter, the Petitioner stated the Beneficiary has worked for the foreign entity since 
2008 and currently is responsible for the installation, debugging and operation maintenance of the 
foreign entity's refrigerated trailers' blowing system (part of a patented thermal insulation system), 
stamping NC equipment (used for precise manufacturing of trailer components), and high-precision 
automatic welding equipment. The Petitioner mentioned that the Beneficiary also assists with 
technology transfer by training machine operators, technicians, and mechanics in the 
manufacturing model, supports the overseas center operation through technical support, and 
coordinates communications between research and development 
and overseas centers. 
As a maintenance & materials supervisor for the Petitioner, the Beneficiary would spend half of his 
time overseeing the production and assembly of refrigerated trailers in its California plant, training 
local operators, technicians and mechanics, and providing inspection and technical support for the 
blowing system and equipment used in trailer manufacturing and assembly. The Beneficiary's 
remaining time would be spent supporting and providing maintenance information to other 
centers, installing and troubleshooting assembly line and equipment at centers, and assisting 
with research and development 
work. 
B. 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's primary claim on appeal is that the Beneficiary possesses special knowledge of the 
company's proprietary manufacturing technical and equipment gained through extensive internal 
training and technical work experience. The Petitioner submits that because equipment used in the 
process was customized specifically for the company's manufacturing needs, proficiency in 
the installation and operation and maintenance of this equipment requires two to five years of 
internal training and experience with the foreign affiliate. 
Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge of: ( 1) the ''flip 
unloading station" or "flipper" (used to unload trailer floor and roof components); (2) the auto­
welding machine, designed for welding the bottom side of the trailer body; and (3) the sideways or 
lengthways lifting and moving cart, which facilitates the transport of materials within the plant. The 
1 The Petitioner submitted copies of two U.S. patents issued to the Petitioner's group in 2013 and 2014. One is for a 
that is ''convenient to assemble and maintain." The other is for " 
4 
.
Matter o.fC-R-T- Inc. 
Petitioner noted that the installation, commissioning and maintenance of this equipment requires a 
combination of mechanical, electrical, and hydraulics knowledge that only a ''higher level mechanic·· 
would possess? Later, in response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that 
acquisition of specialized knowledge needed to operate the flip unloading station and 
sideways/lengthways lifting and moving car requires five years of training and experience with the 
company while knowledge of the operation and maintenance of the auto-welding machine requires 
approximately two to three years of training and experience. 
First, we will address the Petitioner's claim that its manufacturing process is unique in its 
industry and requires the Beneficiary to have knowledge of the maintenance and repair of 
customized equipment which is truly different or uncommon compared to that possessed by 
similarly employed workers in the Petitioner's industry. 
The Petitioner acknowledges that the concept is not unique to its company, but emphasizes that 
it has customized the manufacturing process of reefer trailers to allow division of the manufacturing 
process between China and the United States, complete with customized machines, equipment, and 
"unique patented technology." The Petitioner stated that its competitors are regionally based and 
"do not need to apply this global scale manufacturing process," however it did not explain why the 
equipment needed to assemble a refrigerator 
trailer is different in the modular process versus a 
traditional, single-plant assembly process, given that both assembly processes presumably require 
the maneuvering of large components such as 53 foot floors. sides. and ceilings. The main 
difference appears to be that the Petitioner's group ships those components to a different continent 
for assembly while its competitors manufacture the components and assemble them in the same 
space. However, given that the finished product is essentially the same. it is unclear how the 
equipment used in the assembly, and more specifically, the three types of equipment in which the 
Beneficiary is claimed to have specialized knowledge, is so different or specialized that it would 
require the claimed years of company-specific training. 
The Petitioner has submitted documentation illustrating the company's products and evidence that its 
group is recognized as a leading manufacturer of reefer trailers and other containers. The evidence 
supports the Petitioner's claim that the process is efficient. flexible, and allows the company to 
reach a global client base, but it does not sufficiently differentiate the equipment and processes 
involved in manufacturing and assembling its reefer trailers. The Petitioner did submit a chart which 
briefly described differences in the design, insulation, and delivery method of its trailers. but it was 
unclear how any of the stated points of comparison relate to the Beneficiary's claimed specialized 
knowledge of equipment used in the assembly process. For example, the Petitioner states that 
its trailers use a hidden welding line, versus an exposed welding line. incorporate a second layer of 
insulated foaming, and have a hinged scuff as opposed to a one piece scuff. Overall, although the 
Petitioner has submitted extensive documentation, the evidence does not sufficiently miiculate the 
2 The Petitioner's initial evidence included a five-page " 
equipment among dozens of others, and a flow chart which illustrates the 
company's reefer trailers. 
5 
which listed these three pieces of 
modular production process for the 
.
Matter (~(C-R-T- Inc. 
nature of the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge and how it compares to the knowledge 
held by similarly employed workers in this industry. 
We now turn to the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary possesses extensive trammg which 
establishes that his knowledge is truly special and could not be readily transferred to another 
employee without significant expenditure of time and resources. 
The Petitioner submitted two different English translations of the same Chinese language document 
titled "Employee Training Records," which outlines technical training the Beneficiary with his 
current and prior employees, dating back to 2002. The first translation, submitted at the time of 
filing, stated that the Beneficiary completed the following training with the foreign entity and that it 
included, in most cases, a written examination, and practical assessment: 
10/2008 to 10/2009 Production equipment maintenance skills (tooling positioning. hydraulic 
pressure and power equipment commonly used electrical appliances, etc.) 
12/2009 
to 05/2010 Fourth training class for management 
cadre at basic level 
07/2010 to 07/2011 Production skills learning (riveting, welding, foam, assembly independent 
operation, suspension assembly and repair skills, etc.) 
09/2011 to 02/2012 Basic knowledge of welding engineering and training of operating skills 
for the post3 
06/2012 to 12/2013 Cross training m all production and equipment team of manufacturing 
department 
01/2014 to 12/2014 Site material management learning (the material recetvmg and 
distribution, material classification and on line, backhaul of packaging 
frame, etc.) 
0112015 to 12/2015 Systematic learning of production technology 
The second translation of the same document, submitted in response to the RFE, provided different 
information regarding the first two and last two training courses listed above. The Petitioner added 
to the first course description, and indicated that the second course the Beneficiary 
completed was" Production management training.'' For the 2014 course, the latter translation 
stated that Beneficiary completed ' production process and equipment training'· and it 
3 This training was provided, in part by the and resulted in the Beneficiary 
receiving an "Operating Certificate of National Special Operation (welding and cutting specialist)" 
.
Matter o.fC-R-T- Inc. 
described the 2015 course as ' production process and equipment."' 4 Further, the latter 
translation indicates that both the foreign entity and the Petitioner provided the training, while the 
initial translation states that the foreign entity provided all training. The Petitioner did not explain 
why it submitted a revised English translation of the Beneficiary's training record. Without the 
Petitioner's clarification, it appears that it may have simply added · to support its claim that 
these skills, which as described in the initial record appear to be very general technical skills, were in 
fact specialized. 
Putting aside this unresolved inconsistency, we note that both training records appear to indicate that 
the Beneficiary had been in formal training almost continuously during his tirst seven years of 
employment with the foreign entity, a proposition that seems unlikely given the description of his 
job duties and claimed role as electrician group lead in the foreign entity's maintenance department 
during this same period of time. The Petitioner did not further elaborate on the nature or specific 
length or content of the training outlined in these records in support of its claim that the Beneficiary 
has acquired special knowledge of company equipment and manufacturing processes. Absent 
additional clarification, these documents are insut1icient to establish that the Beneficiary spent more 
than six years in formal training after being hired for a "group lead" position in the foreign entity" s 
plant. 
The record also contains a document called '' · which the Petitioner 
submitted twice and specifically identified as additional evidence of the Beneficiary's training in 
response to the RFE. The document shows that the training included a two-day overview of the 
model and production line, approximately one week of training in daily English 
communications, and longer blocks of training in: (1) production skills (riveting, welding, corner 
foaming, assembly process, cooler installation, repair skills); (2) maintenance skills (hydraulic and 
power equipment works, electrical fault diagnosis, wiring and electrical parts maintenance. common 
tool maintenance, welder repair and site safety); and (3) material handling (procedures for sending 
and receiving material, packaging frame structure, frame packing return shipping process. forklift 
operation). An accompanying chart indicated that this training required approximately one hour per 
day and the total period of training depicted is 56 days over a period of approximately six months 
(June to December 2014). 
Although this 2014 training appeared to encompass most of the -related skills that the 
Beneficiary is claimed to possess, the Petitioner did not attempt to reconcile this training summary 
with the training summary that suggested the Beneficiary began training in technologies at the 
time he joined the foreign company in 2008 and had since been continuously trained over a period of 
seven years. 
Based on the discrepancies and lack of detail in the documentation submitted. the Petitioner has not 
established how much company-specific training the Beneficiary actually completed or to what 
4 In a letter accompanying the RFE response. the Petitioner added that the last two training periods including 
refrigeration system, electrical system, thermal insulation, blowing system, and foaming equipment training, but it did 
not provide any additional training records with this more specific information. 
.
Matter of C-R-T-Inc. 
extent his trammg was specialized as opposed to general trammg in electrical, mechanical, 
hydraulics, or welding technologies and processes. Further, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary 
has served as an Electrician Group Lead since joining the foreign entity in 2008. but has also 
claimed that the person in this position is expected to perform duties that require up to five years of 
training in proprietary technologies. If the Beneficiary was qualified for this supervisory position 
based on his prior experience with unrelated companies. this would undermine the Petitioner's claim 
that the position requires extensive in-house training. 
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 such knowledge would be difficult to 
impart to a similarly experienced worker who is familiar with the process and equipment used to 
assemble refrigerator trailers. 
C. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that his "technical expertise and skills are considered advanced even 
without [the Petitioner's group] as evidenced by his awards and promotion as a member of the 
overseas manufacturing team that advise and support [the company's] manufacturing centers 
around the world." The Petitioner notes that the Beneficiary received ''the 111 
2015 in recognition of his role in advising the company's U.S. manufacturing plants in the 
implementation of the process. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner had also emphasized the Beneficiary's "technical management 
position" as one of three group leads in the foreign entity's "Maintenance Class Group." The 
Petitioner noted that this group is "primarily responsible for operating, maintaining, and 
troubleshooting the specialized and customized equipment for the manufacturing process.,. 
The Petitioner did not provide sufficient suppmiing evidence to show whether or how the 
Beneficiary, as an "Electrician Group Lead" responsible for overseeing six electricians, gained 
knowledge of the company's manufacturing or maintenance processes that can be considered 
advanced in comparison to other employees. 
.
Matter (?fC-R-T- Inc. 
First, 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 notes that the 
maintenance class group is responsible for the customized equipment used in the process: 
however, the Beneficiary's position within this group has not been shown to be at a senior level. 
The Beneficiary has a supervisor responsible for the maintenance class group (which also includes a 
"fitter group lead" and a "motor group lead" and their subordinates). The next tier of employees 
includes several electrical and equipment engineers. a maintenance scheduling supervisor, and 
assistant equipment manager, and a deputy equipment manager, who reports to the manager of the 
manufacturing department. There are many employees who are senior to the Beneficiary with 
respect to the equipment maintenance within the foreign entity's plant and the Petitioner has not 
attempted to show how the Beneficiary compares to those workers in terms of knowledge, training 
or experience. While it is more likely than not that the Beneficiary" s knowledge is advanced relative 
to the small team of electricians he supervises, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim that 
his knowledge of the overall process and related equipment as a whole is advanced in 
comparison to other members of the company's large manufacturing department. In fact, if the 
Beneficiary's team is primarily responsible for the electrical maintenance of equipment used in the 
manufacturing process, it is unclear why his position would require the claimed special or advanced 
knowledge of all aspects of the manufacturing process and the Petitioner's refrigerated trailer 
products. 
Regarding the Petitioner's claim that the foreign entity specially selected the Beneficiary to support 
overseas operations beginning in 2014, the record is not clear on this point. Whi lc the 
Beneficiary's job description indicates that he has acted as an adviser to overseas operations, 
one version of the Beneficiary's training record indicates he was actually sent to the United States in 
2014 to complete related training rather than to advise the U.S. company on the 
manufacturing process or to train U.S.-based technicians. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of an expert opinion letter from who attests 
to the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge of the Petitioner's '·unique tools, processes and products .. 
and to his "advanced role" within the foreign entity, noting that he has been selected .. to lead the 
development of [the company's] refrigeration trailers in the US.'' concludes that the 
Beneficiary has "unmatched ability in understanding the precise technical and functional 
specifications of the company's technologies and methodologies'' and that .. few [company] 
employees have been trained as extensively as [the Beneficiary] on the company"s proprietary 
system," noting that others are "familiar with only certain aspects of the company" s technologies and 
processes." He further states that the Beneficiary was part of a small team that designed and 
developed the processes utilized in manufacturing and assembling the company"s refrigerated 
trailers. 
has made claims regarding the Beneficiary's training. his proposed duties, and his prior 
duties that are not fully supported by the evidence in the record and he did not indicate what 
information he reviewed in reaching these conclusions. The Petitioner has claimed at times that the 
Beneficiary's specialized knowledge was based primarily on his ability to install and maintain three 
specific types of customized equipment used in the process: the Petitioner has not claimed that 
9 
.
Maller (?fC-R-T- Inc. 
the Beneficiary was part of a small team that designed and developed the entire manufacturing 
scheme used by the Petitioner's group. We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinion 
statements from universities. professional organizations. or other sources submitted in cvidctKl' as 
expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any 
way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Malter of 
Caron Int '!, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm 'r 1988). 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a 
specialized knowledge employee consistent with the USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0 Ill, L-
1 B Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https: //\Vww.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. However. 
for the reasons already discussed, the Petitioner has not submitted sutlicient evidence to establish 
that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is either special or advanced. While the Beneficiary 
may be tilling a role beneficial to the Petitioner's competitivenes s 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.'' !d. The memorandum emphasizes 
that "ultimately , it is the weight and type of evidence that establishe s whether the beneficiar y 
possesses specialized knowledge." Id. at 13. 
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 equipment maintenance duties within the 
manufacturing process , 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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiar y 
possesses specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-R-T- Inc., ID# 519632 (AAO Aug. 18, 2017) 
10