dismissed L-1B Case: Manufacturing Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 5, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which manufactures and customizes machinery used to manufacture precision metal 
parts, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a manufacturing engineer under the L-lB 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(l5)(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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, that he has been employed 
abroad in position involving specialized knowledge, and that he will be employed in a specialized 
knowledge capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director incorrectly applied the law and established guidance 
regarding specialized knowledge and made errors of fact by failing to consider all relevant evidence 
submitted in support of the petition. 
Upon de nova 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 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). 
Matter of E-, LLC 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner's group, headquartered in Germany, designs and produces machinery and machining 
systems used for the manufacture of precision metal parts for the automotive, aerospace, and other 
industries. The Petitioner, established in 1994, has a staffof90 employees and serves the group's North 
American customers. The Petitioner explained that machinery purchased by its U.S. and Canadian 
customers is manufactured in Germany, then customized in the United States before being installed, 
configured, and tested at customer facilities. The Petitioner's Canadian branch office, which has seven 
employees, hired the Beneficiary in January 2016 and currently employs him as a manufacturing 
engineer. 1 The Petitioner now seeks to transfer the Beneficiary to the United States on an intermittent, 
as-needed, basis to serve in the same role at an annual salary of $85,000. 
The Beneficiary completed a four-year "Electro-mechanical Craftsperson" apprenticeship with aC7 
Technical Training Centre in Wales, and has an Advanced General National Vocational Qualification 
in engineering. Just prior to joining the Petitioner's Canadian branch, he worked for one of the 
company's Canadian clients, an automotive precision parts manufacturer, in "various roles" for a 
period of seven years. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established, as required, that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge, that he has been employed abroad in position involving specialized 
knowledge, 2 and that he will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
Under the statute, a beneficiary is considered to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: (1) 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)(B) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(c)(2)(B). 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. 
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)(l)(ii)(D). 
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. 
1 As discussed further below, the record contains conflicting statements regarding when the Beneficiary assumed the 
position of manufacturing engineer. 
2 The Petitioner did not claim, in the alternative, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). 
2 
Matter of E-, LLC 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and type 
of evidence which establishes whether or not the beneficiary actually possesses specialized 
knowledge. We cannot make a factual determination regarding a given beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of its products 
and services or processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field involved, and the 
nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how an employee is able 
to gain specialized knowledge within the organization, and explain how and when the individual 
beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence establishing that the 
Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. 
A. Special Knowledge 
Determining whether a beneficiary has "special knowledge" requires review of a given beneficiary's 
knowledge of how the petitioning organization manufactures, produces, or develops its products, 
services, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. Because "special 
knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its 
application in international markets, a petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the 
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 
special knowledge. 
Here, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary possesses special knowledge of the Petitioner's 
proprietary machines ( specifically I I machines), automation systems, programming 
languages, manufacturing processes, and internal systems. The Petitioner maintains that this 
knowledge distinguishes him from other similarly employed workers in the industry "due to the 
complexity and distinctness" of the machinery. 
The Petitioner emphasizes that its machines are proprietary and stated that "each machine requires 
weeks of training, at a minimum," and that "[t]his training can only be undertaken by an individual 
who already has a fairly sophisticated general knowledge of electrical and mechanical engineering, 
since the on-the-job training is highly specific to the particular [ company] machine in question." 
However, the Petitioner did not describe or document its internal training program or indicate the 
amount and type of training its engineers and other technical specialists are required to undertake to 
perform their job duties in support of its claim that knowledge of its proprietary machines constitutes 
special knowledge that could not be readily transferred to others. Most companies that manufacture 
comparable machinery for precision manufacturing can likely describe their products as "complex" 
and distinct in some way from that produced by their competitors. The Petitioner did not elaborate 
with respect to what makes its products particularly complex or distinct. Further, the Petitioner has 
not explained why the "weeks of training" associated with each type of machine should be considered 
knowledge that could not be readily transferred to another engineer in the industry. Since the 
Petitioner did not specify the amount of training in any detail, we cannot rule out the possibility that 
the training could take as little as two weeks. 
3 
Matter of E-, LLC 
It is the Petitioner's burden to establish why the knowledge required to configure, program, install, 
and service its products is truly different or uncommon compared to the knowledge generally held by 
an experienced engineer in this industry. The Petitioner cannot meet its burden by claiming that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is proprietary or unique. We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted 
materials describing its products, a list of projects on which the Beneficiary has worked, examples of 
the Beneficiary's work product, and excerpts of machine language/ coding that the Beneficiary uses in 
his position in support of its claims that the work is "inherently complex." However, we cannot 
determine how the type of work he performs would distinguish his knowledge from another employee 
in the Petitioner's industry, in which any engineer would be expected to perform technically complex 
work. The Petitioner did not, for example, explain the amount or type of internal training the 
Beneficiary completed, if any, in machine language/coding in support of its claim that the ability to 
perform this work requires special knowledge specific to the company. 
The record also contains conflicting information regarding the Beneficiary's own employment history 
within the Petitioner's Canadian branch office, which makes it difficult to determine when or how the 
Beneficiary gained his claimed special knowledge of the company's proprietary products and related 
systems. The Petitioner initially stated that he has held the position of manufacturing engineer in 
Canada since January 2016. The Petitioner's engineering manager repeated this statement in a letter 
submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). However, the Petitioner submitted 
a second letter in response to the RFE, from its human resources manager, which states that the 
Beneficiary was hired in Canada "to fulfill the role of machine setter" and that he "has been working 
in a role that explicitly relies upon his specialized knowledge since at least March 2017" when he 
assumed the "expanded role" of manufacturing engineer. Further confusing matters, the Petitioner 
submitted an organizational chart dated August 29, 2017, which depicts the Beneficiary as both a 
"manufacturing shop" employee in the United States and as a manufacturing engineer in Canada. 
The Petitioner does not provide an explanation for these anomalies or any personnel records which 
would clarify which positions the Beneficiary has held or when he held them. This distinction may be 
important, however, because it appears that the Petitioner considers the manufacturing engineer position 
as one involving specialized knowledge, while this may not be the case with the "machine setter" role. 
On the other hand, if the Beneficiary was in fact initially hired as a manufacturing engineer, this would 
indicate that he was expected to fully perform the duties based on his existing background in precision 
manufacturing, while acquiring any proprietary knowledge on the job. 
While the company letters referenced above consistently convey that it took more than one year for 
the Beneficiary to acquire specialized knowledge, the Petitioner has not adequately documented or 
detailed when or how this acquisition occurred. The Petitioner indicates that when he was first hired, 
the Beneficiary was already "well-versed in manufacturing engineering," and with "the process of 
installing, configuring, troubleshooting, and retooling precision manufacturing equipment." The 
Petitioner further explained that he "immediately began attaining specialized knowledge of [the 
Petitioner's] specific products, services, and processes, and he was able to begin on the most technical 
issues immediately." Based on this information, it appears that a new hire who is already trained and 
experienced in the Petitioner's industry can readily acquire knowledge needed to install, configure, 
troubleshoot, and service the Petitioner's own products. 
4 
Matter of E-, LLC 
Further, we note that the Petitioner has described the Beneficiary's own company-specific training in 
piecemeal fashion, and has not fully documented the nature, type, and scope of the training. The 
Petitioner highlights only two instances in which the Beneficiary received training since joining the 
company. The first is when he was "first hired by [the Petitioner] in Canada to fulfill the role of 
machine setter." The Petitioner noted that, at the time, it was experiencing a shortage of qualified 
personnel to configure 34 standard modular machines for a major client in Canada. It explained that 
it brought in three experienced machine setters from Germany to perform the work, and they provided 
the Beneficiary with "several months of high specialized on the job training ... on our unique! I 
c=Jmachines." The Petitioner noted that, by working with the German employees side by side for 
three months, the Beneficiary was able to complete the project on his own. 
The Petitioner again highlighted that "the complexity of just one of our machines is such that it requires 
extensive specialized, on-the job training in order to have an understanding of the machine sufficient 
to set it up at the customer site." The Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary "acquired knowledge of a 
broad range of [company] machines" during his first year and a half of employment in Canada, and 
"advanced knowledge" of the company's automation systems, but did not provide details or 
documentation of any additional training he completed during this time. Nevertheless, the Petitioner 
indicated that by the end of this period his knowledge was so advanced that he could advise other 
employees of "design issues, quality issues, installation, and setup." The Petitioner's conclusory 
claims that the Beneficiary gained special knowledge over the course of his first year and a half of 
employment are insufficient. 
The Petitioner identified a second period of training that the Beneficiary completed after March 2017, 
noting that he was sent to its German parent company's facilities "for specific training on [company] 
machinery which had been sold to another major client" for the client's manufacture of disc brake 
systems. The Petitioner stated that this training was "appropriate only for somebody who already had 
specialized and advanced knowledge of [the Petitioner's] machines" but did not explain why this was 
the case. The Petitioner indicated that this client already had a number of facilities in Europe and the 
United States, but indicated that it was necessary for one of the Petitioner's Canadian personnel to 
acquire specialized knowledge of the manufacturing process particular to the client's brake disc 
system, as the client was setting up manufacturing operations in Canada. The Petitioner did not 
describe the nature, length, or scope of the training the Beneficiary received in Germany in support of 
its claim that this training contributed to his special knowledge. While the Petitioner highlights the 
fact that the Beneficiary was specifically chosen for this training, it also indicates that it needed a 
Canadian employee to complete it, and the record indicates that the Canadian branch was minimally 
staffed. 3 The Petitioner did not sufficiently explain why the Beneficiary's selection for the training 
reflected his status as a specialized knowledge employee. 
Overall, while there may not be employees outside of the petitioner's organization with the exact 
knowledge the Beneficiary possesses, the record does not demonstrate how the knowledge the 
Beneficiary gained is significantly different from that held by workers in similar positions in the 
Petitioner's industry. The record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special knowledge 
of the company's products, systems, and techniques. 
3 The organizational chart dated August 2017 shows only four staff in the Canadian branch operations, although the 
Petitioner stated there were seven employees in Canada at the time this petition was filed. 
5 
Matter of E-, LLC 
B. Advanced Knowledge 
Determinations concerning "advanced knowledge" require a review of a beneficiary's knowledge of 
the petitioning organization's processes and procedures. A petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidence that a given beneficiary has knowledge of or expertise in the organization's processes and 
procedures that is greatly developed or farther along in progress, complexity, and understanding in 
comparison to other workers in the employer's operations. Such advanced knowledge must be 
supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed 
by others. 
In addition to claiming that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is uncommon in the industry, 
the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "has knowledge of certain aspects of our manufacturing 
systems that is more advanced and farther developed than that held by other employees." However, 
there is some ambiguity in the record with respect to the nature of the Beneficiary's advanced 
knowledge and with respect to the Petitioner's comparisons between the Beneficiary and other 
company employees. 
The Petitioner initially emphasized the Beneficiary's work in Canada, noting that "he has gained 
specialized knowledge that no other U.S. employee holds regarding how this equipment must be 
maintained and designed in that market." The Petitioner also stressed the Beneficiary's previous work 
experience with one of its Canadian clients, noting that he is "the only employee who knows both 
sides of the work needed to be done, that of [the Petitioner] as well as that of [the client]." The 
Petitioner explained that it sought the Beneficiary's presence in the United States during setup and 
design prior to delivery, but noted that he would also assist U.S. staff with "other Canadian clients." 
Therefore, based on the initial statement from the Petitioner, it appeared that the Beneficiary would be 
coming to the United States as needed to assist with the customization and set up of machinery that 
would ultimately be delivered to his former employer and other Canadian clients, and then return to 
Canada for the installation and servicing of the equipment. The Petitioner emphasized that the U.S. 
staff do not have experience working with end-users in Canada, although it did not identify how the 
Canadian market and client differs to the extent that setting up the company's equipment there requires 
specialized knowledge. 
In addition to highlighting the Beneficiary's familiarity with the Canadian market and the Petitioner's 
clients there, the Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary has "an ability to design, formulate and 
improve the manufacturing process" that is not held by any other company employee worldwide. The 
Petitioner did not elaborate as to how the Beneficiary alone, in an international manufacturing business 
with 1600 people, acquired this advanced knowledge. Given that the primary business of the 
Petitioner's group is to manufacture machinery and manufacturing systems that will help its clients 
achieve their manufacturing goals, it is unclear how this knowledge would be uniquely held by the 
Beneficiary, an employee who has been with a small branch of the organization for less than three 
years. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner also appeared to change its claims regarding the purpose of the 
Beneficiary's temporary transfer and the need for his advanced knowledge in the United States. The 
Petitioner's initial statement indicated that he would come to the United States to work on early stages 
6 
Matter of E-, LLC 
of projects that would ultimately be installed in Canada, and which would rely on his knowledge of 
the needs of those clients. In response to the RFE, however, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
"will visit the U.S. to work on U.S. projects only when they are beyond the current expertise of [the 
Petitioner's] U.S. employees so that he can directly assist and impart his knowledge to these 
employees." 
When instructed to submit information that would allow USCIS to compare the Beneficiary's 
knowledge with that of other company employees, the Petitioner ultimately made comparisons 
between the Beneficiary and certain U.S.-based employees. In support of its claim that the Beneficiary 
has advanced knowledge, the Petitioner noted he is "folly knowledgeable of multiple phases of 
installing and launching [the Petitioner's] automation systems for customers, including the 
manufacturing process, machine setup, NC programming, and service." The Petitioner stated that 
most employees can perform only one of these phases while the Beneficiary can perform all four 
functions. 
The Petitioner submitted two tables comparing the Beneficiary to other employees within the U.S. 
engineering and manufacturing departments. According to the Petitioner's engineering manager, each 
table "compares our most advanced employees from different departments and demonstrates that the 
skills [the Beneficiary] holds are internally more advanced than any other professional." 
One of the submitted tables compares the Beneficiary's position title, salary and a set of specific skills 
to those of other employees, including a "supervisor, tooling, & workholding design," an NC 
(numerical control) programmer, an electrical commissioning supervisor, a process set-up supervisor, 
and two CNC ( computer numerical control) setters. The specific skills or characteristics listed include 
NC programming; using internal systems to verify bill of materials and drawings; making adjustments 
to machine geometries; debugging and verifying manufacturing cells and automation systems; having 
"good working relationships" with engineers and process technicians in Germany; recognizing and 
resolving tools and work holding related difficulties during setup; developing solutions to improve 
manufacturing processes; and "experience working with various parties to reach equipment and 
qualification acceptance." 
The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary possesses all of these skills, while the other listed 
employees possess between zero and four of the eight listed items. Notably, none of the employees to 
whom the Petitioner compared the Beneficiary have the job title "manufacturing engineer" nor do any 
of them have "engineer" in their job titles. Further, it is unclear why possession of the identified skills 
would be considered "advanced" within the company. Rather, it appears that the Beneficiary's 
particular skillset would be gained by any employee with experience installing and setting up machines 
at customer locations. Given that the Petitioner's business model is to receive machinery from its 
German parent, customize it, and install and set it up at customer locations in North America, the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary, after less than three years of experience with the small 
Canadian branch, is the only employee in North America, or within the international organization as 
a whole, with the skills to carry out many of these functions requires additional explanation. As noted, 
the Petitioner was established in 1994 and has over 90 employees. 
7 
Matter of E-, LLC 
The Petitioner submitted a second table comparing the Beneficiary's knowledge of specific company 
products to that possessed by other company employees, including an NC programmer, two process 
engineers, a process set-u su ervisor and two CNC setters. The s ecific machines the Petitioner 
identified include: 
The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary has experience with all of 
the listed machines, while the other employees have knowledge of only one to four of the listed 
machines. As noted, the record does not identify with specificity the amount or type of training the 
Beneficiary completed with respect to any one machine in support of its claim that simply having 
experience with a breadth of different equipment constitutes advanced knowledge within the company; 
in fact, the Petitioner did not originally claim that the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge with 
respect to several of the machines I isted in the chart, such asl I and I I The 
other listed employees may very well have experience with machines that the Beneficiary has never 
used and we cannot determine based on this selective comparison that the Beneficiary's knowledge is 
advanced compared to his peers. Further, the Petitioner has not submitted information that would 
allow us to compare the other employees' relative training and experience within the company. 
It is clear that the Petitioner considers the Beneficiary to be a valuable and productive employee, but 
it has not sufficiently shown that his knowledge of company products, processes, and procedures is 
advanced compared to other similarly employed-workers within the company, or that he possesses 
special knowledge that is different from what is generally held in the Petitioner's industry. 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, we 
need not further address whether the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a position involving 
specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of E-, LLC, ID# 4058883 (AAO July 5, 2019) 
8