dismissed L-1B Case: Plastics Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 26244501 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 13, 2023 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker) 
The Petitioner is a manufacturer of customized trays for the auto, medical, and electronics industries. 
It seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily in the position of "process mechanic for plastics and 
rubber technologies" under the L-lB 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 Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and was employed abroad and would 
be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB nonimmigrant visa classification, the beneficiary must seek to 
enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or 
a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a specialized knowledge capacity. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 
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). 
ll. FACTUALBACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is a plastic packaging manufacturer that seeks to expand its existing U.S. manufacturing 
plant where it designs and manufactures plastic packaging solutions through thermoforming, a 
"proprietary system of heating and shaping plastic polymers into a form." The Petitioner explained 
that thermoforming requires specialized knowledge of its "proprietary processes," which were not 
described but were said to include "specific temperature utilization, cycle times, rotation frequency, 
and machine pressures" and were said to be "proprietary to each and every product" the Petitioner 
makes. The Petitioner stated that the success of its U.S. operation hinges on its ability to develop and 
consistently execute "its proprietary thermoforming manufacturing processes," which it claims the 
Beneficiary is "uniquely qualified" to perform because of his vocational training and experience with 
the proprietary manufacturing processes of ______ the Petitioner's parent entity, where 
the Beneficiary has been employed since August 2019. 
The Petitioner elaborated on the Beneficiary's vocational training, which was three years in duration 
and involved both classroom and practical experience. The Petitioner stated that the classroom portion 
was comprised of courses designed by the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce, while the 
practical training was in the form of an apprenticeship, which the Beneficiary completed atl I 
I I The Beneficiary subsequently passed a theoretical and practical examination, which 
resulted in his becoming "officially accredited" as process technician for plastics and rubber 
engineering and earning a "Level 4 rating," which allows the Beneficiary to work autonomously and 
supervise others. The Petitioner further stated that despite the rigor of the academics and difficulty of 
the apprenticeship, the Beneficiary was among "the small group of individuals who successfully 
complete[ d] apprenticeship program, thereby gaining the knowledge necessary 
to meet the Petitioner's business goals. 
III. ANALYSIS 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he has been employed abroad and will be employed in the United 
States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
As a threshold issue, we must 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 the Beneficiary's past and intended future 
employment involve specialized knowledge. 1 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if they have: (1) a "special" knowledge of the 
petitioning organization's product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" 
level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the petitioning organization. Section 
214(c)(2)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). A petitioner may establish eligibility by 
submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the statutory 
definition. 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, 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 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
Special knowledge concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and their 
application in international markets. To establish that a beneficiary has special knowledge, the 
petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or 
uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular 
industry. 
Because "advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, 
the petitioning entity may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge of or 
an expertise in the organization's processes and procedures that is greatly developed or further along 
in progress, complexity, and understanding in comparison to other workers in the employer's 
operations. Such advanced knowledge must be supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart 
from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and type 
of evidence which establishes whether 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. 
The Petitioner explains that in the course of acquiring knowledge that it claims is specialized, the 
Beneficiary underwent "intensive training over a certain period of time" as part of a "dual training" 
program which was comprised of "classroom instruction at a vocational school and on-the-job time at 
a company." The Petitioner clarified that the requisite theoretical knowledge and experience are 
earned "[a]t the end of the apprenticeship," highlighting the significance of the Beneficiary's 
apprenticeship with I las part of that "intensive training." It is therefore reasonable 
to conclude that the Beneficiary could not have assumed a position involving specialized knowledge 
until he completed the training during which such knowledge is claimed to have been acquired. 
In the present matter, the record indicates that I I has employed the Beneficiary in 
the position of process mechanic for plastics and rubber technologies since August 2019. However, 
the record indicates that a considerable portion of the Beneficiary's period of employment was spent 
in an apprenticeship which was part of the "dual training" process. Although the Petitioner provided 
an "Examination Certificate" showing that the Beneficiary completed his vocational training and 
attained "level 4" qualifications, the certificate is dated June 24, 2022, thereby indicating that most of 
the Beneficiary's period of employment with I predated the level 4 certification, as it was 
spent in an apprenticeship which was part of the training process. Accordingly, even if the 
Beneficiary's training had resulted in specialized knowledge, which the Petitioner would also have to 
demonstrate, most of his time atl lwas spent in a training capacity, thus resulting in no more 
than seven months of post-training employment as of November 2022, when this petition was filed. 
As such, the Beneficiary could not have accumulated the required one continuous year of employment 
abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). 
3 
The Petitioner also has not established that the knowledge the Beneficiary acquired during his 
apprenticeship with lwas specialized. In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director 
stated that the record lacks evidence establishing that the Petitioner's manufacturing systems, 
processes, and machines are significantly more complex than those commonly used in the 
manufacturing industry and require knowledge that is either "special" or "advanced." The Director 
further stated that the Petitioner did not compare the Beneficiary's training and employment to that of 
others who perform similar types of work within the industry. 
In a response letter the Petitioner explained that its organization uses thermoforming and described 
this manufacturing process as a "proprietary system of heating and shaping plastic polymers into form" 
to manufacture packaging solutions and claiming that thermoforming "requires specialized knowledge 
of our proprietary systems." However, the Petitioner did not describe any of its own "proprietary 
systems" nor did it explain how its use of thermoforming is proprietary to its organization. And 
although the Petitioner states that the thermoforming process "requires specific knowledge about the 
thermoplastics used and about the technical parameters of the machines," it is unclear how possessing 
this knowledge is uncommon among other manufacturers who use thermoforming, which is a 
manufacturing process used by some companies to manufacture packaging. Thus, although the 
Petitioner claims that thermoforming is not widely used, this process is not exclusive to the petitioning 
organization, nor is there evidence that this process is uncommon within the manufacturing industry. 
See https://formlabs.com/blog/thermoforming. It is unclear which characteristics of the Petitioner's 
manufacturing process, if any, are specific to its organization or why an individual with specialized 
knowledge is required to implement that process. 
The Petitioner also referred to the Beneficiary's duties as "specialized" and claimed that his position 
requires "mastery" of "specialized duties." For instance, the Petitioner stated that replacing machine 
and other components is "an important aspect of [ the organization's] productivity" and highlighted the 
Beneficiary's ability to "independently replace infrared radiators in the heater if necessary." However, 
the Petitioner did not explain why specialized knowledge is required to gain this ability. The Petitioner 
also stated that the Beneficiary is responsible for ensuring that machines and other devices are operated 
in compliance with safety regulations, explaining that such compliance helps prevent injury to workers 
and damage to property during the manufacturing process. As an example, the Petitioner discussed 
the use of a punching machine with a punching knife, stating that "a cautious approach and the wearing 
of protective equipment" are required when using this machine. However, despite explaining the 
importance of safety measures and highlighting the Beneficiary's role in ensuring that those measures 
are regularly implemented in the manufacturing process, the Petitioner did not establish that 
specialized knowledge is required to fulfill this role. In sum, the Petitioner did not explain why the 
Beneficiary's duties require specialized knowledge. 
Further, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has mastered the thermoforming process, pointing 
out that the Beneficiary has gained the ability to work independently and became certified as a shift 
supervisor in March 2022 and as a trainer in June 2022. However, the Petitioner has not established 
that these qualifications equate to specialized knowledge. As previously noted, the thermoforming 
process is not specific to the petitioning organization, but rather is a process employed by other 
manufacturers. The Petitioner has not distinguished the Beneficiary's knowledge of that process and 
its components as uncommon among other manufacturers who use thermoforming. See USCIS Policy 
Memorandum PM-602-0111 at 7, L-JB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015). And although the 
4 
Petitioner claims that thermoforming "requires specialized knowledge of our proprietary processes," 
it does not identify or describe those processes to explain how they are proprietary to the petitioning 
organization and why specialized knowledge is required to employ these processes. Rather the 
Petitioner claimed that its organization has developed "proprietary processes" that involve "specific 
temperature utilization, cycle times, rotation frequency, and machine pressures." However, it did not 
clarify how these components distinguish the Petitioner's manufacturing process from those of other 
manufacturers who use thermoforming. In fact, the Petitioner's claim that these components of the 
manufacturing process "are all proprietary to each product we make" indicates that while the 
components themselves are likely customized in the making of each product, they are likely common 
to thermoforming and thus probably part of any manufacturing process that involves thermoforming. 
The Petitioner therefore has not established that mastering the thermoforming process results in special 
knowledge of its organization's product, service, or technique, or in advanced knowledge of its 
organization's processes and procedures. See id. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated above, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special or 
advanced knowledge or that he was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in 
a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5