dismissed L-1B Case: Projection Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 3-D-P-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 25,2018 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which sells, rents, and installs dome projection systems, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a projection system installation manager of its new office
1 
under the L-1 B 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) § !Ol(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(l5)(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and has been employed 
abroad as a manager, executive, or in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director did not 
sufficiently consider the complexity of the technology with which the Beneficiary works. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary '"in a 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 IOI(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. !d. 
A beneficiary is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to 
a company if the beneficiary has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in 
1 
The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(F). 
Matter of 3-D-P-, LLC 
international markets or has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the 
company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). 
Specialized knowledge is also defined as knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning 
organization's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management or other interests and its 
application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the 
organization's processes and procedures. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( 1 )(ii)(D). 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses 
knowledge that is special or advanced compared to others in the same field. The Director also found 
that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary had previously been employed in a position that 
was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge. 
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 she possesses 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's past and intended future 
employment involve specialized knowledge. 2 
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. 
specialized knowledge consists of either: (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. 
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. 
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 
'The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
Matter of 3-D-P-. LLC 
such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the 
beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
The Petitioner owns dome projection technology used in planetariums. art installations, and for other 
immersive visual settings. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will hold "the key position in 
the company" with "key knowledge in software installation and content preparation." The Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary would hold the same position in the United States as she did abroad. The 
Petitioner described the duties of that position: 
• Coordinate internal resources and third parties/vendors for the t1awless execution 
of full dome projection installation; 
• Ensure that all projects are delivered on-time within scope, budget and committed 
quality; 
• Assist in the definition of project scope and objectives, involving all relevant 
stakeholders and ensuring technical feasibility; 
• Ensure resource availability and allocation; 
• Develop a detailed project plan to monitor and track progress; 
• Manage changes to the project scope, schedule and costs usmg appropriate 
verification techniques; 
• Report and escalate to company management if needed; 
• Successfully manage the relationship with the client and all stakeholders; 
• Perform risk management to minimize project risks; 
• Supervise negative-pressure projection dome screen installation using l the 
company's] unique technology; 
• Supervise and coordinate installation of multiple-projector fulldome mapping 
systems including projectors settings, projection scheme: 
• Set up software for [the Petitioner's] unique ... projection alignment (calibration) 
consisting of 5 stages: 
I) Geometric alignment; 
2) Edge blending; 
3) Brightness uniformity; 
4) Gamma matching; 
5) Black level calibration. 
• Manage the encoding of commercial content and providing the appropriate 
licensing according to Content Protection System ([the Petitioner] is also a 
distributor of fulldome content from different production studios. Only several 
people in the company including [the Beneficiary] have access to original content 
files which are necessary for encoding the content for specific project[ s]. Media 
server for each project requires specific encoding and licensing and [the 
Beneficiary] will be responsible for this). 
At the time, the Petitioner did not state which of the above tasks require specialized knowledge, or 
explain the nature of that knowledge. Most of the listed duties appear to be routine elements 
.
Matter of 3-D-P-, LLC 
associated with handling projects for clients. Access to content files does not constitute specialized 
knowledge. As explained above , a petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that the beneficiary's 
knowledge (1) is not commonly held throughout the particular industry and (2) cannot be easily 
imparted from one person to another. If access to content files is restricted, then such access may 
not be commonly held throughout the Petitioner's industry , but the Petitioner has not shown that it 
cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. From the Petitioner's description, the content 
files themselves appear to represent the intellectual property of customers, rather than the Petitioner. 
(The Petitioner's role is to present the content rather than to create it.) 
The Director advised the Petitioner that the initial submission did not establish that the Beneficiary 
possessed specialized knowledge or used that knowledge in her work for the organization. In 
response, the Petitioner submitted the same list of duties and quoted from a patent application that 
the company filed. (The Beneficiary's name is not on the patent application.) The summary of that 
application reads, in part: 
The group of inventions relates to forming and displaying of the image on curved 
screens using projectors , also it can be used in domed multiprojector systems, 
fulldome theaters, planetariums, various simulators and virtual reality. The device 
consists of a server, a camera , a remote control module , [and] the switching. With the 
help of image separation devices ... a single server can be connected to a plurality of 
projectors . Provided cross-linking of several display devices in a single synchronized 
image, [preventing] visible overlap, color differences , light intensity , ambient light 
between the fragments , created by various digital projectors or screens. 
The patent application and related documents show that the company uses technology involving 
multiple projectors which must be strategically placed and computer-coordinated, but they do not 
clarify the Beneficiary's role or show that she possesses or uses specialized knowledge. The 
Beneficiary did not develop the technology, and the Petitioner did not claim that the Beneficiary is 
deeply involved in building or maintaining the specialized equipment. The ability to operate 
complicated equipment such as a computer or a projection system does not necessarily constitute 
specialized knowledge of the technology underlying that equipment. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner did not sutliciently explain what 
knowledge the Beneficiar y possesses , or how that knowledge is special or advanced. The Director 
also found that the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary 's foreign position involved 
specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted certificates showing that it had applied for copyrights on a 
computer program which calibrates and controls the projectors in its projection system. The 
copyright applications show only that the Petitioner claims that program as its own. 
The Petitioner submits certificates showing that the Beneficiary completed two training courses: 
'' software installation '' from November I, 2013 to January 30, 2014; and, ; 
4 
.
Maller of 3-D-P-, LLC 
' from June 5 to August 30, 2014. The Petitioner did not submit copies of training 
materials, descriptions of the courses , or other materials that would corroborate the new claim that 
the Beneficiary's training took almost six months. The certificates do not specify whether this 
training was continuous and full-time, or periodical in conjunction with other duties performed for 
the company. 
In a subsequent letter, the Petitioner states: "As [a] Project System Installation Manager has access 
to the core of secret [proprietary] software , he/she . . . should work more than 2 years in the 
company in order to undertake the in [the company ' s] solutions 
and courses ." This new claim contradicts the certificates and a 
previously submitted employment agreement , which indicate that the Beneficiary began working for 
the 
company in September 2013 and began the identified training less than two months later. 
The Petitioner asserts that the projection systems sometimes require calibration "during the event " 
because environmental conditions can distort the projection surface. The Petitioner states that 
the 
"Projection System Installation Manager [can] save several different calibrations during the 
installation and apply the correct one during certain period[s] of the day ... without interrupting 
[the] working process. " The Petitioner did not explain how special or advanced knowledge come s 
into play during calibration adjustment. The Petitioner' s software includes an "Automatic 
Calibration " process , and the Petitioner has not shown the extent to which an operator must 
intervene during calibration . 
The Petitioner submits two further letters on appeal. One letter, attributed to artist 
but not signed , indicated that the Petitioner 's "revolutionary mapping program was 
unbelievable by the speed and precision of projection calibration;· and that the Beneficiary ' s 
"holistic understanding of her managerial position " is responsible for the artist's ongoing 
collaboration with the company. The letter provides no further substantive information about the 
Beneficiary's role. 
is the president of , which ''develops large-scale immersive 
360 theaters , mobile projection domes and live. interactive programming. " states that he 
has "worked closely with
" the Beneficiary , who ''is highly experienced in the integration of 
innovative geodesic dome systems and visionary programming . F rom project development , support 
team facilitation , setup/breakdown coordination , to troubleshootin g and problem solving , [the 
Beneficiary] has been the key player bridging all activities for [the Petitioner]. " He adds: 
It can take a projector mapper /programmer a full day to calibrate the entire 
multiprojector system using several software applications. Yet with a team like [the 
Petitioner] led by [the Beneficiary], this time can be reduced to 15-20 minute s 
depending on the size ofthe dome. [The Beneficiary] uses the company's proprietary 
program to calibrate all systems at once saving hours and sometimes days of tedious 
work. 
.
Matter of 3-D-P-, LLC 
The above assertions concern the quality of the Beneficiary's work and the advantages of using the 
Petitioner's proprietary software, but the Beneficiary 
did not create the software. The Petitioner has 
not explained how using existing software involves special or advanced knowledge. 
discusses the range of skills needed to build a geodesic dome and set up the projector 
system, but the Beneficiary does not perform these tasks. Rather, she appears to coordinate the 
activities of other workers, about whom the Petitioner has provided little information. 
The record as a whole does not indicate that setting up and installing the Petitioner's projection 
system involves specialized knowledge. Previously, the Petitioner had submitted a printout from its 
website, including the following information: 
FAST INSTALLATION AND SETUP 
[The Petitioner's] system installation and tine-tuning is quick and easy. Your venue 
can be converted into a fully-featured planetarium or digital fulldome theater in the 
shortest time possible without even altering the schedule! ... 
EASY TO OPERATE, CONTROL AND MAINTAIN 
[The Petitioner's] projection systems are designed with the goal of providing a truly 
one-button solution in mind. You do not need a team of qualified technicians to 
operate and maintain the system. A lamp or projector can be replaced quickly and 
easily. Thanks to our revolutionary auto-calibration technology, you can resume the 
work in just a couple of minutes. 
Whatever specialized knowledge may have gone into the creation of the Petitioner's technology, the 
Petitioner has not shown that operating or calibrating the equipment requires comparable knowledge. 
A considerable portion of the calibration process appears to be automated. 
Whether proprietary or not, a petitioner must still establish that the knowledge utilized in the 
proposed position and possessed by the beneficiary is in fact specific to the petitioning organization, 
and somehow different from that possessed by similarly-employed personnel in the industry. The 
Petitioner has its own technology, but is not the only company that provides dome projection 
services and equipment. It is reasonable to believe that other companies in the industry develop 
internal tools and methodologies. Without a substantive explanation or evidence, the Petitioner has 
not established that its activities are particularly complex or uncommon compared to similar 
companies in the field. The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how the Beneficiary gained 
knowledge specific to only its organization, and has not supported a claim that the duties of the 
proffered position require a significant amount of training time. 
6 
.
Maller of 3-D-P-, LLC 
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 its statements 
regarding the Beneficiary's knowledge of its organization. However, the record lacks probative 
evidence demonstrating that extensive training is required to perform the duties it claims are 
different from those of others in the Beneficiary's tield, either within or outside of the organization. 
The record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's knowledge is in fact significantly different 
from that generally held by workers in similar positions in the industry. or that it would require up to 
a full year or longer to acquire the knowledge needed for the position . 
In sum, the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's combination of experience , work 
assignments , and knowledge of the Petitioner's methods has given her knowledge that is distinct or 
uncommon compared to similarly employed workers in the industry or others within the petitioning 
company or that is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and understanding in 
comparison to other workers in the employer's operations. 
While the Beneficiary may be a valuable employee who is well-qualified for the proposed position 
in the United States, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special or advanced 
knowledge. If the Beneficiary does not possess special or advanced knowledge, then we caru1ot find 
that her position abroad required specialized knowledge. 
III. NEW OFFICE 
Beyond the Director 's decision, we find that the record is deficient with respect to the Beneficiary's 
intended place of work . 
The Petitioner, established in 2016, has identified itself as a new office as defined by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F) . The Petitioner must establish that it has secured sufficient physical premises to 
house the new office. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(3)(vi)(A). 
On the petition torm, the Petitioner specified that the Beneficiary would work at 
New York. The Petitioner has not subsequently identified a different work 
location for the Beneficiary. Initially, the Petitioner only submitted a rental agreement for a 300-cubic­
foot self-storage space in New York. The Director informed the Petitioner that a rented 
storage space was not sufficient evidence that the Petitioner had secured the claimed premises in 
In response , the Petitioner submitted an August 2016 lease agreement tor a space in 
California. The Petitioner, however , has continued to claim the address on other documents, 
including materials submitted in July 2017, nearly a year after the lease agreement. Printouts 
from the Petitioner's website also show the address, 
which amounts to an assertion that the 
Petitioner used to be at that address, whether or not it moved later. The Petitioner has not submitted a 
copy of a lease, a deed, or any other legal instrument to establish that the petitioning entity has ever 
rented , owned , or otherwise controlled the commercial space on the second floor of 
(If the Petitioner simply used the address to receive mail, then the site did not 
.
Matter (~f 3-D-P-, LLC 
house the new office. In such a case , identifying as the address where the 
Beneficiary would work would represent misrepresentation of a material tact.) 
Because the petition form specifically asks for the physical location of the Beneficiary's intended place 
of employment, and the regulations require evidence that the Petitioner has secured physical premises to 
conduct business, the address of the Petitioner's actual, physical place of business is material to the 
petition. The absence of evidence regarding the address is, therefore, an additional deficiency. 
Furthermore , a petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1 03 .2(b )( 1 ). The Petitioner did not sign the lease on the Torrance site until six weeks after it tiled the 
petition, and therefore the lease agreement for that location does not show that the Petitioner had 
already secured adequate physical premises at the time of tiling. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that her past 
employment (which is essentially identical to her intended future employment) involved specialized 
knowledge. The Petitioner also has not shown that its new office had secured adequate physical 
premises at the time of filing. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o/"3-D-P-. LLC, ID# 917049 (AAO Jan. 25, 2018) 
8