dismissed L-1B Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-C-, Inc. 
Non-Precedent Decision .of the . 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 12, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of food and beverage packaging machinery, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a business systems analyst under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for . . . 
intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(1)_, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(L). The L-IB ·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 Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary is qualified for and was employed abroad in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director made erroneous legal and factual determinations, 
asserting that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is both special and advanced. 
Upon de novo review, we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish 
that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and was employed abroad in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. Therefore, 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 capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
~nowledge," for one continuous y~ar within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a){l5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a specialized knowledge capacity. Id. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or 
her to perform the intended services in the United States: 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
.
Matier of B-C-, Inc. 
II. BACKGR'OUND 
The Petitioner is part of a family of companies that desig.ns and manufactures industrial packaging 
automation and proprietary packaging machinery. In an effort to increase its revenues and market 
share, the Petitioner purchased , ,. the Beneficiary ' s foreign employer, whose 
proprietary industrial machinery it seeks to introduce into the U.S. market. The Petitioner discussed 
the Beneficiary's knowledge of its software , 
stating that the Beneficiary was the "primary driver" of the integration of that software into the 
foreign entity, where he developed test plans and training materials , conducted in-house training, and 
created two sales software tools. The Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary's "specialized 
knowledge of proprietary equipment and software applications," which he used to 
understand and gather the company's business requirements and create software solutions to meet its 
needs. The Petitioner also claimed that the Beneficiary .has "advanced knowledge of sales 
software tools," which he plans to implement at one of its U.S. subsidiaries . The Petitioner seeks to 
employ the Beneficiary as a business systems analyst at an annual rate of pay of $58,000, claiming 
that he is "ideally suited to transfer his knowledge" to its U.S. subsidiaries. 
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 in a specialized knowledge 
capacity. If the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge, then we cannot conclude .that he has been employed abroad in a specialized knowledge 
capacity. 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: (I) a "special" knowledge 
of the company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" level of 
knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 214( c )(2)(8) of the Act. A 
petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition. 
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. ( 
In the denial decision, the Director found that the record lacked evidence to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary ' s foreign position required either special knowledge of the company 's products that is 
2 
.
Matter of B-C-. Inc. 
uncommon in the industry and could not be easily transferred, or an advanced level of knowledge or 
expertise of the organization's processes and procedures. 
I 
. On appeal, the Petitioner.contends that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is both special and 
advanced with respect to the foreign entity's proprietary equipment and sales software tools as well 
as the Petitioner's own software. The Petitioner states that as the creator of several sales 
software tools during his employment abroad , the Beneficiary has the necessary specialized 
knowledge to integrate those tools into his proposed U.S. employer: The Petitioner points out that 
prior to assuming his position with the foreign employer, the Beneficiary interned with the proposed 
U.S. employer where he was trained on the U.S. entity's "internal processes and tools, sales 
reporting structure[,] and [the Petitioner's] ;, The Petitioner states that after completing his 
U.S.-based internship , the Beneficiary "continued to develop his specialized knowledge" by 
"completing in-house programs and training related to internal programs, manufacturing 
processes and facilities, and proprietary equipment ," claiming that he did not assume his specialized 
knowledge position with until April 2017, after he completed such training . 
Although the Petitioner provided evidence to show that the Beneficiary has experience working with 
the foreign entity's proprietary products and is therefore an asset to his current and proposed 
employers, we find that the Petitioner has not adequately explained how the Beneficiary gained 
knowledge that is claimed to be specialized or established that he has specialized knowledge. 
A. Special Knowledge 
Because "special knowledge " concerns knowledge of the employing organization ' s products or 
services and its application in international markets , a petitioner may meet its burden · through 
evidence that the beneficiary h'as 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. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner claims that as a result of completing an internship with the 
proposed U.S. employer and receiving training in that employer 's "internal processes and tools and 
sales reporting structure," the Beneficiary was able to learn about that employer ' s sales tracking 
system and procedures, which he used to create "an intuitive sales dashboard website" that senior 
leadership and sales executives used to streamline the Petitioner's "processes and systems." The 
Petitioner did not, however, describe those "processes and systems" or point to any distinct or 
uncommon characteristics to explain how the Beneficiary's knowledge of these elements is "special" 
as compared to other business systems analysts. The Petitioner also claims that it invested 
approximately $100,000 in the Beneficiary's "intensive training," but dod not provide evidence to 
suppmi its claims as to the intensity level or cost of the training ; nor does it provide evidence 
demonstrating that such training was required to obtain specialized knowledge. Likewise, the 
Petitioner does not explain what is "special" about the Beneficiary 's knowledge of 
proprietary tools and procedures or state how his knowledge of these tools and procedures is 
3 
.
.
Matter of B-C-, Inc. 
different when compared to the knowledge others possess of similar tools and procedures in the 
industry. Moreover, the Petitioner does not explain how the Beneficiary ' s U.S. internship, which 
focused on the ·u.s. employer's "internal" processes, tools, and sales reporting structure, helped him 
gain specialized knowledge of the foreign entity's tools and procedures. 
In a request for evidence (RFE) , the Director informed the Petitioner that the record lacked sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary 's knowledge of the foreign entity 's proprietary tools 
and processes is "special" and that it is different from the knowledge possessed by individuals in · 
similar positions within the same industry. The Director also noted that possessing knowledge of a 
company's products or processes does not necessarily establish that such knowledge is "special" and 
cannot be readily obtained by others within the industry. The Director identified several factors that 
we consider in determining if a beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge , including a description 
of the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge, an explanation of how that knowledge is "special," 
training records, evidence of the length of time the Beneficiary has been using the claimed 
specialized knowledge , a comparison of the Beneficiary ' s knowledge to. that of others who are 
similarly employed within the industry , evidence of his prior education, training, and employment, 
along with an explanation of how these elements relate to the specialized knowledge. 
In response, the Petitioner provided multiple statements reiterating·the Beneficiary's experience with 
its organization, first as an intern in the United States and later as an employee at its foreign 
subsidiary starting in January 2017. However , the Petitioner did not identify the actual knowledge 
the Beneficiary gained during his internship with the U.S. employer, nor did it establish that the 
internship was a step in the process of acquiring specialized knowledge of the foreign entity ' s tools 
and procedures. The Petitioner also claimed that during the Beneficiary ' s first three months of 
employment abroad , he received in-house training on "internal programs, manufacturing 
processes and facilities, and proprietary equipment" ; however, it did not describe any manufacturing 
processes or proprietary equipment to establish that the Beneficiary ' s working environment would 
require specialized knowledge. Although the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary "had become a 
leading expert-in proprietary equipment" by April 2017, it did not justify this reference or 
explain how the Beneficiary became a "leading expert" after having only been employed at 
for three months. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter o.fChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 3(,9, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Further, the Petitioner claimed that it would take another individµal ''a significant amount of time 
and structured training" to gain the minimum level of knowledge required to perform the 
Beneficiary's duties; it listed a: 2 I-month training regimen , including eight months of training with 
the Petitioner's two months of training with ex1stmg six months of work with 
proprietary tools and equipment, and five months with 
a web-based tool that measures and displays keY performance indicators. 
However , the claim that 21 months of training is required to attain the Beneficiary's level of , 
knowledge is contradicted by the Petitioner 's competing claim that the Beneficiary had become "a 
leading expert " after completing a four-month internship and receiving only three months of in­
house training and on-the-job work experience at We also note that claiming that the 
4 
.
\ 
Matter of B-C-, Inc. 
Beneficiary needed six months of experience with proprietary tools and equipment and five 
months with its in order to gain specialized knowledge is inconsistent with the Petitioner's 
claim that the Beneficiary's employment in a specialized knowledge capacity commenced in April 
2017, after only three months of working at The Petitioner must resolve these incongruities 
in the r~cord with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Further, in discussing the · internship that preceded the Beneficiary's employment abroad, the 
Petitioner stated that the training was focused on the U.S. entity's processes, tools, and reporting 
structure as well as the Petitioner's the· Petitioner did not explain how this training 
contributed to the Beneficiary acquiring specialized knowledge of the foreign entity's tools and 
processes. Despite claiming that 21 months of training was required to attain the Beneficiary's level 
of knowledge, the Petitioner repeatedly stated that the Beneficiary's four-month U.S. internship 
focused primarily on the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employer and that the 
-specific training commenced when the Beneficiary wa~ hired by that entity in January 2017 . 
As such, the Petitioner did not-establish that it took the Beneficiary longer than three months to 
acquire the claimed specialized knowledge of the foreign entity's tools and processes. Despite 
noting that the Beneficiary is only business systems analyst, this factor alone is not 
sufficient to determine that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is "special" or uncommon as 
compared to other business systems analysts in the industry of packaging equipment manufacturers. 
The Petitioner also provided a list of the Beneficiary ' s experience at its U.S. and foreign facilities, 
commencing with the U.S.-based internship from August to December 2016 followed by the job at 
in January 2017 as a business systems analyst. The Petitioner stated that as a result of the 
knowledge he gained during his internship in the United States , the Beneficiary became "the primary 
driver of the integration at from January to April 2017. The Petitioner did not explain 
how the Beneficiary was able to assume the role of "primary driver" immediately upon commencing 
his position with given that he had not undergone any training that was specific to 
products and processes prior to commencing his employment in 2017. Further, based on this 
timeline, it is unclear that the Beneficiary had gained "special" knowledge of products and 
processes as of April 2017, when the Petitioner claims he started his employment in a specialized 
knowledge capacity . Although the Petitioner provided a guide titled 
and a detailed product brochure of offerings , neither document supports the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary underwent training , either in the United States or abroad, that 
resulted in "special " knowledge of the foreign entity's products and processes . 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that although the Beneficiary has experience using 
the foreign entity's products and processes, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is special in comparison to that of others within the same organization or industry. The 
Director also determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the Beneficiary ' s training and 
experience resulted in specialized knowledge that he is claimed to possess. Accordingly , the 
Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's current position abroad 
involves specialized knowledge . 
.5 
.
Matter of B-C-, Inc. 
On appeal, the Petitioner puts forth arguments that are similar to those made earlier in it's RFE 
response, claiming that it would take "a significant amount of time" to attain the Beneficiary's level 
of specialized knowledge of . proprietary equipment and software applications. To support 
the claim that the Beneficiary acquired specialized knowledge, the Petitioner points to the two 
software tools that the Beneficiary developed, claiming that he created training materials, which he 
used to train other employees in the use of these tools. 
We find that the Petitioner's arguments and supporting evidence are not sufficient ·to establish that 
the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. Although the Petitioner documented the 
Beneficiary's education, it offered insufficient evidence about the specialized knowledge content of 
the Beneficiary's U.S. internship and the training he is claimed to have received upon assuming his 
position with the foreign entity. As previously indicated, a key element that factors into our 
determination of whether the Beneficiary has "special" knowledge is establishing precisely how and 
when the Beneficiary obtained the knowledge that is claimed to be "special." However, the 
Petitioner in this matter provides inconsistent information as to the protocol one must undergo to 
acquire the "special" knowledge that the Beneficiary is claimed to possess. On the one hand, the 
Petitioner broadly states that the Beneficiary interned for the U.S. employer and completed three 
. months of "in-house programs and training related to · internal programs and facilities, and 
proprietary equipment"; on the other hand, the Petitioner describes a 21-month training regimen that 
Beneficiary could not have attained given the experience he acquired prior to April 2017, when the 
Petitioner claims the Beneficiary assumed his claimed specialized knowledge position with the 
foreign entity. Without providing a consistent and reliable description of the path for acquiring 
"special" knowledge at it is unclear how the Beneficiary attained knowledge that is claimed 
to be uncommon in comparison to other business systems analysts. Despite the Beneficiary's key 
role in developing two software solutions, the Petitioner has not provided evidence establishing that 
the Beneficiary acquired specialized knowledge or that such knowledge was a prerequisite for 
developing those solutions. In other words, the Petitioner did not establish a nexus between 
developing software solutions within the context ot' the foreign entity and possessing specialized 
knowledge of that entity's products and processes. 
The record is equally incomplete in drawing a connection between the Beneficiary ' s claimed 
"special" knowledge and his work experience with the Petitioner's foreign subsidiary. On the one 
hand, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary received further training froin January to April 
2017 in order to acquire specialized knowledge of the foreign entity's proprietary equipment and 
processes; paradoxically, however, the Petitioner referred to the Beneficiary as the "primary driver" 
of the foreign entity's integration process prior to the time he purportedly acquired 
knowledge that is claimed to be "special." The Petitioner does not make a distinction between the 
knowledge acquired as of January 2017, which resulted in the Beneficiary assuming the "primary 
driver" role in the foreign entity's critical integration process, and the knowledge acquired from 
January to April 2017, which is claimed to have resulted in .the Beneficiary assuming a specialized 
knowledge position and becoming a "leading expert" in the foreign entity's proprietary equipment 
and processes. Without a meaningful explanation about the steps the Beneficiary took and the 
6 
.
Matter of B-C-, Inc. 
content he learned to become a "leading expert" in the foreign entity's equipment and processes, we 
cannot gauge the J:?JOCess the Beneficiary underwent from his role as the "primary driver," which 
arguably did not require specialized knowledge, to his role as "leading expert" at which point the 
Beneficiary arguably attained a higher level of knowledge sufficient to be deemed "special." 
Regardless of whether the Beneficiary acquired his knowledge through work experience or formal or 
classroom training, the Petitioner should articuiate the various stages involved in acquiring the 
knowledge based on the assumption that a basic level of knowledge is necessary as a foundation 
upon which the higher levels of knowledge would be built. Here, the Petitioner does not articulate 
the process for acquiring the Beneficiary's current level of knowledge. Instead, it makes broad 
claims about the Beneficiary's level of knowledge in comparison to others without distinguishing his 
knowledge as an intern with the U.S. employer from the knowledge he acquired as an employee of 
the foreign entity. Further, the Petitioner refers to the foreign entity's proprietary equipment and 
processes, but does not describe the equipment and processes or point to specific characteristics that 
distinguish them from those of other companies . to establish that the Beneficiary's work with the 
foreign entity's equipment and processes requires "special" knowledge that he gained in the course 
of his employment with the Petitioner and its foreign subsidiary. Although the Petitioner points to 
the Beneficiary's development of two software applications, it does not distinguish between those 
software products and the software products used by similar organizations within the industry or 
explail) why specialized knowledge was necessary to develop software products for 
As previously indicated , a determination of whether a beneficiary's knowledge is "special" requires 
a comparison of that knowledge to the knowledge of others who hold comparable positions in the 
industry. The Petitioner bears the burden of showing that the Beneficiary holds knowledge that is 
noteworthy or uncommon compared to his colleagues outside the organizatiori . Here, the Petitioner 
did not expressly compare the Beneficiary's duties to those of other similarly employed 
professionals at similar organizations, nor did it establish that using and further developing software 
within the context of the foreign entity is somehow different from and requires knowledge that is 
"special" as compared to similarly employed individuals within the same industry. 
In light of the above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that special knowledge was 
required to perform the Beneficiary's assigned duties with the foreign entity or that his knowledge is 
distinct and can be taught only through prior experience with that organization . The Petitioner does 
not adequately specify how the Beneficiary's knowledge is "special" or establish how and when the 
Beneficiary gained such knowledge. While the Beneficiary may be a valuable employee, the .record 
lacks sufficient evidence to establish that his knowledge is. "special," as defined in the Act and 
regulations. The Petitioner has submitted little evidence to set the Beneficiary's knowledge apart or 
to demonstrate that it is uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished by some unusual quality. Due1to 
these evidentiary deficiencies, the record does not establish that he possesses ':special" knowledge. 
.
Matter of B-C-, Inc. 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner has not established, m the alternative, that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge. 
Determinations concerning "advanced knowledge" require review of a beneficiary ' s knowledge of 
the petitioning organization ' s processes and procedures. A petitioner may meet its burden (hrough 
evidence that a given beneficiary has knowledge of or expertise in the organization's processes and 
procedµres that is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and understanding in 
comparison to other workers in the employer's operations. Such advanced knowledge must be 
supported by evidence setting· that knowledge apart from the elementary or basic knowledge 
possessed by others. Also, as with special knowledge, the petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate 
that a beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the particular industry and cannot 
be easily imparted from one person to another. 
Here, the Petitioner broadly refers to the Beneficiary's "advanced " knowledge of the foreign entity's 
sales software tools and the Petitioner's tool. However, it does not specify any software tools 
or list any characteristics to support these general claims. The Petitioner also provides insufficient 
evidence that would allow us to compare the Beneficiary's knowledge to that of other employees 
within the petitioning company and its foreign subsidiary; merely claiming that the Beneficiary is the 
only business systems analyst within the foreign organization does not allow for a comparison of his 
. knowledge to that of others , nor does it lead to the conclusion that the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
greatly developed or further along in progress from .others within the organization. Further , as 
discussed above , the Petitioner does not provide an adequate explanation to clarify precisely how 
and when the Beneficia·ry gained knowledge that is claimed to be "advanced. " Therefore , the 
Petitioner has not supported the claim that the Beneficiary possesses "advanced" knowledge . 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses special or advanced 
knowledge, we need not address whether the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a position 
· involving specialized knowledge. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above , the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge and that he was employed abroad m a position involving 
specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: · The appeal is dismissed . 
Cite as Matt er of B-C-, Inc., ID# 2032625 (AAO Feb. 12, 2019) 
8