dismissed L-1B Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-E-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY30,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company that designs and manufactures electronic component devices for automotive 
manufacturers, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a mechanical project engineer under 
the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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 record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and has been employed abroad, and 
will be employed in the United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it met all 
requirements for this visa petition and that the Director erred by applying an inappropriate standard. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must have 
employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, 
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 managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. Id. 
The relevant statute defines specialized knowledge as a special knowledge of the company product and 
its application in international markets or an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures 
of the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). Our regulations further 
define specialized knowledge as: 
[S]pecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization's 
product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management or other interests and its 
.
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
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(l)(1)(ii)(D). 
An individual L-1 B 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 filing of the petition; evidence that the beneficiary's 
prior education, training, and employment qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the 
United States; and a detailed description of the services to be performed in a specialized knowledge 
capacity in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge, and that he has been employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
In denying the petition, the Director observed that the Petitioner did not document how the 
Beneficiary's proficiency in the use and application of its tools, processes, and methodologies while 
employed at the foreign entity satisfies the definition of specialized knowledge. The Director found 
that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has knowledge that is special or advanced in 
the electronic equipment 
manufacturing field or that his knowledge is special or advanced compared 
to other similarly experienced persons in this field. Further, the Director found that the Petitioner 
did not establish that its tools, processes, and methodologies are different from those used by other 
mechanical project engineers working in the Petitioner's industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references the previously submitted evidence and asserts 
that it has 
established that more likely than not the Beneficiary has advanced and specialized knowledge of its 
design and development of and of Indicator Switch Assembly relating to 
and 
applications and architectures. 
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 and would be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. . 
A petitioner may establish eligibility for an L-1 B visa by submitting evidence that the beneficiary 
and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition. Under the statute, a 
beneficiary is deemed 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. 
2 
.
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining 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 expertise is special or advanced, and that the 
beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 1 
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 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 
beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
A. Advanced Knowledge 
The Petitioner 
initially claimed that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced and special with regard 
to its design of and of Indicator Switch Assembly relating to 
and applications and 
architectures applications and architectures). However, the Petitioner 
concentrates its argument on its claim that the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge is different and 
more advanced than that of its other employees in India as it relates to these applications 
and architectures. Accordingly, we will first address the issue of whether the Petitioner has 
established that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of its processes and procedures. 
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 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 
operations. Such advanced knowledge must be supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart · 
from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. 
The Petitioner initially stated that its foreign subsidiary employed 139 engineers and only 20 are 
senior design engineers. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary had been working at its 
subsidiary in India as a senior design engineer since February 2015, a year and a half prior to filing 
this petition. The Petitioner identified the Beneficiary's job duties in this position as follows: 
1 Although some aspects of the "special" and "advanced " knowledge definitions may overlap , we will address each 
element individually. 
3 
.
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
[The Beneficiary] started off in this position, performing the design and modelling of 
automotive switches and control modules in & CAD 
tools. He worked on the design brief, including the concept, performance and 
production criteria of the auto electrical switches. He investigated how existing 
products works [sic] and developed ideas based on it. He sketched design ideas and 
developed design concepts using CAD (computer-aided design). He researched 
materials, processes or market requirements. He identified and continues to identify 
the suitability and availability of materials for the product. He made and continues to 
make the technical presentations with design proposals to senior design management 
and customer. He performed validation using the proto samples, and 
analysis. He supervises team meetings and liaises with engineers 
in other departments, including marketing, to discuss and negotiate appropriate 
production processes, costs and commercial issues. He discusses with the 
counter-part's production facilities & vendors to evaluate the feasibility of 
manufacturing and production. He produces detailed, final drawings and 
specifications using dedicated computer software (CAD) to produce design 
specifications, including bill of materials. 
' 
The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary continues to hold this same position but has been given 
specialized responsibilities. The Petitioner then stated that the Beneficiary "is the only Senior 
Design Engineer responsible for the design of and of Indicator Switch Assembly 
relating to and 
and that he is the only engineer at the foreign subsidiary who has demonstrated this 
ability in the design of the and Indicator Switch Assembly for these products. 
The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary "quickly grasped [its] systems and procedures." 
The Petitioner also noted that the Beneficiary is the only senior design engineer who attended 
high-level meetings with clients to review, suggest, and recommend engineering design projects with 
respect to the design of the and Indicator Switch Assembly for these automotive 
products. The Petitioner referenced the Beneficiary's ability to propose, plan, design, lead and tutor 
other engineers regarding the design of the and Indicator Switch Assembly for 
these products and noted that the other senior design engineers lead other specialized processes and 
do not possess the kind of superior, advanced, and special knowledge that the Beneficiary possesses 
as it relates to the design of the Analysis and Indicator Switch Assembly for the 
specific automotive products. The Petitioner also stated that regular engineers, as opposed to senior 
design engineers, assist in the desig~ and are not required to have visionary abilities. 
The Petitioner, however, provides little information on the Analysis or Indicator 
Switch Assembly products for the platforms or the design processes associated with these 
products? The Petitioner did not specifically identify what any of its procedures, practices, and 
2 
The record includes a document describing craftsmanship requirements that does not identify the Petitioner and 
is current only to March 18, 2014, a date more than two years prior to the filing of the petition. The record further 
4 
.
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
methods are as they relate to this particular technology. The Petitioner simply repeatedly states that the 
Beneficiary is the only senor design engineer at the foreign entity responsible for the design of 
Analysis and of Indicator Switch Assembly relating to the specified and 
product standards and that he is the only engineer at the foreign subsidiary who has demonstrated this 
ability in the design of the Analysis and Indicator Switch Assembly for these 
products. The record does not include a sufficient description of this technology and probative evidence 
regarding the Petitioner's processes and methodologies relating to this technology. 
To differentiate the Beneficiary's knowledge from other employees within the petitioning 
organization we must review the duties of those employees in similar positions. In that regard, we 
note that although the Petitioner stated that the foreign subsidiary employed 139 engineers, the 
foreign entity's organizational chart depicts only 26 engineers. The 26 engineers depicted on the 
chart report to five different project or technical leads and have various titles such as advanced 
project engineer, senior project engineer, project engineer, senior design engineer, design engineer, 
costing engineer, advanced design engineer, and associate engineer. The foreign entity's 
organizational chart identifies the Beneficiary, a second senior design engineer, and two project 
engineers as on the same team reporting to one of the designated technical leads. In response to the 
Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner revised the numbers for its engineers and claimed that 
the foreign subsidiary employed 103 engineers and only two of these are senior design engineers, not 
20 as it initially stated. 
The Petitioner does not include job descriptions for the 26 engineers depicted on the organizational 
chart or otherwise differentiate the duties and knowledge of the engineering positions depicted. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that its "senior design engineers" have greater knowledge and ability 
than regular engineers, the description of the Beneficiary 's duties and the knowledge he possesses to 
perform them do not demonstrate that his duties require significantly greater knowledge than the 
knowledge of a regular engineer. The fact that the petitioning organization delegates limited 
responsibilities to its "regular" engineers and assigns more responsibilities to its senior design 
engineer does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he was 
employed in a position involving specialized knowledge. The Petitioner does not adequately explain 
its statement that senior design engineers have visionary abilities and does not sufficiently describe 
the duties of the regular engineers to support its claim that they only "assist" in designing the 
product. The record does not include sufficient evidence to conclude that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge is more advanced than the foreign entity's "regular" engineers. 
The Petitioner also does not adequately distinguish the duties of the Beneficiary's senior design 
engineering position from the engineers on the orgapizational chart with titles that suggest a more 
senior engineering position within the petitioning organization, such as advanced project engineer, 
advanced design engineer, and senior project engineer. Further, the Petitioner does not sufficiently 
differentiate the Beneficiary's senior design engineering position with the other senior design 
includes templates for specific project s with and which do not identify the Petitioner , its particular technology , 
or its specific responsibilities. Without additional information regarding these documents , we cannot determin e their 
relevance to the matter at hand. Thus , they will not be further considered in our analysis. 
5 
.
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
engineer on his team. We note that the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's position is different 
because the other senior design engineer on his team is assigned to projects that are unrelated to 
Analysis and Indicator Switch Assembly Panels. 
Although we recognize that the other senior engineers may work on different product lines, their 
knowledge of the petitioning organization's processes, procedures , and methodologies would likely 
be similar. Again, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information about the specific 
processes, procedures, and methodologies for a specific product line, such as the 
Analysis and Indicator Switch Assembly Panels product line, to demonstrate that working with these 
products requires advanced knowledge. Moreover, the Petitioner has not submitted probative 
evidence distinguishing the Beneficiary's experience or training from other similarly employed 
engineers or evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary's customer service or any supervisory role 
requires specialized or advanced knowledge of a specific project or the Petitioner's processes 
relating to the project. 
We have reviewed the Beneficiary's training status report which shows he received two hours of 
induction level training in February 2015, shortly after he was hired, two hours of training on QMS 
and Configuration in March 2015, and 12 hours of training on the ' 
analysis tool" in May 2015, a little over three months after he was hired. Other than the 12 hours of 
training on the analysis tool, the record does not identify other training that the 
Beneficiary received on this tool. The Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary's responsibilities also 
included "validation using the proto samples, and analysis." However, the 
Beneficiary did not receive training on (a total of eight hours) and verification and validation 
(two hours) until May 2016, 15 months after he was hired, and only 4 months before the Form I-129 
was filed. The Beneficiary's limited training on the Analysis tool and the recent 
limited training on as it relates to analysis suggests that the knowledge 
required to perform the duties ofthe particular project to which the Beneficiary has been assigned can 
be acquired with only a few days of training and therefore has not been shown to be advanced 
knowledge in comparison to that held by the Petitioner's other engineers. 
The Petitioner in this matter attributed the Beneficiary's ability to "quickly grasp[]" its processes of 
validation using proto samples, and analysis to the Beneficiary's 
advanced formal education in the engineering field (bachelor's in engineering and a post graduate 
diploma in tool design) and nine years of designing and modeling automotive electrical switches for 
his previous automotive industry employers. This acknowledgement confirms that the Beneficiary, 
as an experienced engineer, was able to quickly learn the petitioning organization's processes, 
procedures, and methodologies and perform the duties of a specific project, and that such duties do 
not require advanced knowledge specific to the company. Further, according to the Petitioner, the 
Beneficiary was placed in the position of senior design engineer when he was hired. It is reasonable 
to believe that another similarly educated and experienced engineer could also quickly acquire the 
knowledge necessary to work on the same technologies . 
6 
.
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
Although the Petitioner claims that at some point the Beneficiary assumed specialized 
responsibilities, the record does not specifically identify the specialized responsibilities or clearly 
state when the Beneficiary was given these responsibilities. Thus, it is not possible to ascertain from 
the record, when the Petitioner is claiming that the Beneficiary's knowledge of the Petitioner's 
processes and procedures became more advanced than other employees, engineers, or other senior 
design engineers within its employ. Accordingly, the record is also insufficient in establishing that 
the Beneficiary's position involved advanced knowledge of the Petitioner 's processes and 
procedures for at least one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
It is clear that the Petitioner considers the Beneficiary a valuable employee who excels at his 
position. However, the record does not sufficiently distinguish the Beneficiary's knowledge from 
that of other similarly-employed workers in the petitioning organization, and thus does not establish 
that the Beneficiary possesses more advanced knowledge than those similarly employed individuals. 
B. Special Knowledge 
The Petitioner also has not established that the Beneficiary possesses special knowledge. Because 
"special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and 
its application in international markets, 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. 
In its initial letter in support of the petition, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary's "special 
knowledge of the design of and of Indicator Switch Assembly relating to 
and 
applications and architecture is particularly beneficial to [the Petitioner's] competitiveness in the 
international automotive marketplace." The Petitioner indicated further that the Beneficiary ' s 
position requires the ability to propose, plan, design, lead, and tutor other engineers regarding the 
design of the and Indicator Switch Assembly relating to the products. 
The actual duties described, however, appear to be those typical of an electrical engineering position. 
While the current statutory and regulatory definitions of "specialized knowledge" do not include a 
requirement that the Beneficiary's knowledge be proprietary, the Petitioner might satisfy the current 
standard by establishing that the knowledge required to work with the Petitioner's proprietary 
products, processes, or procedures is special or advanced. 
Here, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient details regarding its technology to demonstrate that its 
products are substantially different or more complex than other similar products in the automotive 
electronics industry. Likewise, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient detail about its design, 
development, implementation, or schematics to explain how the processes, methodologies, or 
procedures differ significantly from, or are more complex than, those used in other automotive 
electronic engineering positions . In fact, the record indicates that the Beneficiary was hired in a 
senior design engineering position despite having no prior experience with the Petitioner's 
processes, methodologies, or procedures or its specific products. The evidence does not support the 
.
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
Petitioner's claims that the Beneficiary acquired his specialized knowledge through his experience 
with the Petitioner's products. Rather, the evidence suggests that the position does not require 
specialized knowledge of the Petitioner's product and can be transferred to a similarly experienced 
engineer within a reasonable amount of time. 
A petitioner's statements may provide persuasive evidence of specialized knowledge if they are 
detailed, specific, and credible. Here, the Petitioner asks us to put great weight on the Beneficiary's 
knowledge of a specific project relating to automotive products. However, the record is 
deficient in detailing when the Beneficiary was assigned "specialized responsibilities," for this 
project. The record also lacks probative evidence demonstrating that extensive training is required 
to perform the duties it claims are different from that of other engineers, either within or outside of 
the organization. While there likely are no employees with the exact same knowledge the 
Beneficiary possesses, the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge is in fact 
significantly different from that generally held by professionals in the Petitioner's industry, or that it 
would require up to a full year or longer to acquire the knowledge needed for the position. 
A petitioner must establish that it meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a 
preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In 
other words, a petitioner must show that what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. 
To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under the preponderance standard, we consider 
not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of 
the evidence. !d. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). For the foregoing 
reasons, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary, more likely than not, possesses special 
knowledge of the company's products and their application in international markets. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. As the evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge, we also cannot conclude that he has been employed abroad and would be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-E-, Inc., ID# 334469 (AAO May 30, 2017) 
8