dismissed L-1B Case: Scientific Instruments

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19974926 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : May 20, 2022 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, a developer, manufacturer, and distributor of scientific instruments , seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a product support engineer under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish , as required , that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity involving 
specialized knowledge, and that he would be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the 
United States . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
On appeal , the Petitioner contends that the Director did not consider the nature of its products and 
industry , emphasizing that the knowledge required to perform the duties of the Beneficiary 's current 
and offered positions is extremely complex and can only be gained through extensive internal training 
and experience. 
In these proceedings , it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe , 25 
I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of 
Christa's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the 
appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB 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). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is the U.S. affiliate of a United Kingdom company described as "a leading provider of 
systems and accessories for the Its products, which it 
distributes to universities, biological research laboratories and biopharmaceutical companies, include 
the I I spectrometers and I I 
spectroscopy systems. The Petitioner was established in 2014 to market, sell and service the 
company's products to clients in North America. 
The Beneficiary has been working for the United Kingdom affiliate as a product support engineer 
since December 2016. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary has been responsible for installing 
new instruments at customer laboratories; training customers' new users; maintaining, servicing, 
upgrading and repairing existing instruments; responding to customer support-related helpdesk 
inquiries; recording support activities in internal systems, promoting the company's after-sales 
products and services; maintaining a CRM customer database; writing technical procedures for 
troubleshooting and support; and assisting in preparing after-sales and support literature and media, 
among other duties. The Petitioner now seeks to employ him in this position in the United States at 
an annual salary of $51,400, and states that he would be performing similar duties. 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary has a bachelor's degree in medical physics, a master's degree 
in photonics and materials, and a master of business administration. Prior to joining the Petitioner's 
organization in the United Kingdom, he had approximately nine years of professional experience, 
including research, sales, consulting, and account management roles, primarily in the energy, medical, 
and life sciences sectors. 
III. ANALYSIS 
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 
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. § 1184( 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 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
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). 
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 readily 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 a given beneficiary 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 an employee can acquire specialized knowledge 
within the organization and explain how and when the individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
A Procedural History 
In a supporting letter, the Petitioner stated that its product support engineer position, as described 
above, requires an employee who "possesses highly 'specialized knowledge' regarding the Company's 
equipment including the I I and the I 
SpectSpectrometer." The Petitioner provided copies of the user manuals for these products in support 
of its claim that the equipment is "extremely complex" and that the installation and servicing of such 
equipment "requires specialized knowledge in the environmental, pneumatic, electrical and computer 
requirements specific to each product." It emphasized that the product support engineer must have 
"hands-on experience independently installing and repairing the Company's equipment and products 
for their customers." The Petitioner stated that the knowledge required "can only be attained through 
years of experience and training" with its group of companies and emphasized the Beneficiary's four 
years of experience in the position. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from its foreign affiliate's CEO, who stated that the Beneficiary 
has "the highest quality specialized knowledge that an engineer can achieve within our company, 
which requires years of experience and prior knowledge of the specific scientific applications where 
our instruments are utilized." According to the letter, the Beneficiary's knowledge (gained through 
his formal education and training time the company) "differs from most of the Ph.D. people available 
on the market," noting that individuals with advanced degrees in engineering or biotechnology would 
not possess a breadth of knowledge that includes technical expertise in electronics, photonics, physics, 
scientific instrumentation troubleshooting, biophysics, biology, and biochemical laboratory 
procedures. The foreign entity's CEO states that even an "ideal" candidate would require "extensive 
training of approximately three years" to acquire the specialized knowledge possessed by the 
Beneficiary. 
3 
The letter from the foreign entity also briefly addresses the industry, noting that the Petitioner's group 
is one of four main manufacturers of spectrometer products. The CEO emphasized that 
"specialized knowledge is restricted between those people working in this very niche industry, in 
which each [company] has confidential technological differences between their scientific equipment." 
Finally, the CEO's letter included the following summary of training available to the company's 
product support engineers, noting that "although it is not compulsory," the position's "path" is divided 
into seven steps, as follows: 
Accumulative 
Actionable Steps Tasks Training 
Timeframe 
Step 1 Service maintenance work (Preventive Maintenance Service) 3 months 
Step 2 Training Customers 6 months 
Step 3 Certificate instruments with IQOQPQ certification for 12 months 
Research and Drug development (GMP & CFR) 
Step 4 Hardware and Software Troubleshooting >12 months 
Step 5 Training Distributors 18 months 
Step 6 Major Service on-site 24 months 
Step 7 Robotics >36 months 
The Petitioner included information from its website regarding various support plans available for its 
products, noting that preventive maintenance, optical service and IQ/OQ services are provided by 
"fully trained and certified service engineers." 2 However, it did describe or document any training or 
certifications completed by the Beneficiary, or further describe the nature of the training involved with 
each of the seven "steps" listed in the chart. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director asked that the Petitioner provide: additional evidence of 
the Beneficiary's training and experience and an explanation as to how it relates to the claimed 
specialized knowledge; a comparison of the Beneficiary's knowledge to that of other similarly 
employed workers in the field and within the company; and copies of curricular and training materials 
for any internal training he completed, among other evidence. The Director emphasized that it is the 
Petitioner's burden to demonstrate that a similarly employed person in the field could not readily 
acquire the company-specific knowledge within a reasonable period of time. 
In its response to the RFE, the Petitioner explained that its only U.S.-based product support engineer 
unexpectedly departed after two years with the company and emphasized its need for a fully trained 
employee to ensure that it can support its North American customers, some of which are involved in 
research related to COVID-19. The Petitioner repeated its earlier claim that it would take three years 
of training and hands-on experience for a new employee to acquire the knowledge possessed by the 
Beneficiary. It also provided a slightly expanded breakdown of the Beneficiary's proposed duties by 
2 A "service schedule" included with the Petitioner's initial evidence indicated that most of the recent and upcoming 
support services scheduled for its U.S. and Canadian customers were ·'preventive maintenance visits," along with some 
new installations. 
4 
identifying specific procedures required for the servicing and maintenance of its products at customer 
locations. 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE included organizational charts for the U.S. and U.K. companies. 
The foreign entity's chart indicates that it has six employees in its customer support department, 
including a customer support manager and a support group coordinator who oversees the Beneficiary 
and three other product support engineers. The Petitioner's organizational chart does not identify any 
staff in product support roles. The Petitioner also provided evidence of patents related to its products, 
additional product and software manuals, written procedures related to the installation, calibration and 
testing of its products, copies of Service Reports completed by the Beneficiary between 201 7 and 
2020, and training materials for the company's products, some of which identify the Beneficiary as 
the author. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted the company's internal "Role Description" for the Beneficiary's 
U.K.-based position, which lists the company's formal education and experience requirements. 
According to this document, the role requires a "higher degree in a science or engineering subject or 
other equivalent experience" and strong fine motor skills. The company indicates a preference for 
candidates who also have experience in the service and support of scientific instrumentation, 
experience with I spectroscopy, competence with the setup, configuration 
and troubleshooting of computers, and experience with Microsoft Dynamics CRM. The role 
description indicates that there is "required training" consisting of "comprehensive training on the 
[company's] range of instruments" provided internally over a period of three months, training in 
internal systems (including the CRM customer database), health and safety training, and "on the job 
training shadowing existing employees (internal)." 
The Director denied the petition concluding that although the record establishes that the Beneficiary 
is regarded as a valuable employee who is experienced with the company's products and services, the 
record did not establish how his knowledge is special or advanced in comparison with similarly 
employed workers within the organization or within the industry. In reaching this conclusion the 
Director observed that the Petitioner did not provide information that would allow for comparisons 
between the Beneficiary's knowledge and that generally found within the company and the industry, 
and did not sufficiently establish the minimum time required to obtain the claimed specialized 
knowledge, including formal training and actual experience accrued after the training. 
B. Special or Advanced Knowledge 
Special knowledge concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Director disregarded the fact that it operates within a 
niche industry with only a few other companies engaged in the manufacture ofLJ spectroscopy 
systems comparable to itsl I range of products. The Petitioner's assertion that there are 
relatively few employees in the market who have been trained to install and maintain this specific type 
5 
of laboratory equipment is noted, but the Petitioner does claim that everyone who is qualified to 
maintain and service such equipment should be deemed to possess specialized knowledge. Rather, 
the Petitioner claims that the knowledge required to perform the duties of a product support engineer 
within its group of companies is "special knowledge" that is truly distinct from what is held by other 
similarly employed workers, and that even an "ideal" candidate would require years of training and 
expenence. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner has provided evidence of patents related to its products. The 
statutory and regulatory definitions of "specialized knowledge" do not include a requirement that a 
beneficiary's knowledge be proprietary. However, a petitioner might satisfy the definitions by 
establishing that a beneficiary's purported specialized knowledge is proprietary, if the petitioner also 
demonstrates that the knowledge is either "special" or "advanced." By itself, simply claiming that 
knowledge is proprietary will not satisfy the statutory standard. We look at the nature of the 
proprietary knowledge, how it can be acquired within the company, and when and how a given 
beneficiary gained such knowledge in order to determine whether the knowledge qualifies as "special 
knowledge." 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation or evidence to support its claim that the 
knowledge required to install, service and train users on its proprietary products can only be acquired 
through at least three years of formal training and experience. The company's marketing materials 
state that its product support services are provided by "trained and certified" engineers. The foreign 
entity's letter provides a very brief overview of a seven-step, 36-month training "path" for its support 
engineers, although it appears to indicate that completion of such path is "non-compulsory." However, 
despite the Director's request, the Petitioner did not provide evidence of any training the Beneficiary 
received since joining the company, and therefore did not demonstrate that he had completed the 
seven-step training path ( or any other internal training), or that he had been "certified" by the company 
to provide specific support services to customers. 
Further, despite its claims that a new employee would require three years of training and on-the-job 
experience to acquire specialized knowledge of its products, the Petitioner submitted an internal role 
description for the position indicating that newly hired product support engineers receive 
"comprehensive training" on the company's full range of products over a three-month period. This 
evidence indicates that the Petitioner requires its new hires to have a degree (or equivalent) in science 
or engineering, and that it prefers to hire persons who have some background in the service and support 
of scientific instrumentation. 
This evidence undermines the Petitioner's claim that even an "ideal" candidate would require three 
years of training and experience to perform the duties of a product support engineer. Rather, it 
indicates that the knowledge could likely be readily transferred to an employee with the appropriate 
education and relevant experience in servicing and supporting scientific instrumentation. While the 
Petitioner submits the user manuals for its products as evidence of their complexity, the role 
description nevertheless indicates that the company provides its product support engineers with 
"comprehensive" training across its product lines in only three months. 
While we do not question that the Beneficiary is well-qualified to perform the intended duties in the 
United States after four years of experience as a product support engineer in the United Kingdom, the 
6 
Petitioner has not met its burden to that its product support engineers are required to complete 
extensive training in order to provide the services the position demands or that the position otherwise 
requires special knowledge. The foreign entity hired the Beneficiary in December 2016. The 
evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary has the required educational background but does not show 
that he had any experience in the service and support of scientific instrumentation when hired by the 
foreign affiliate. The Petitioner submitted a copy of a I I Service Report completed by the 
Beneficiary in early April 201 7 demonstrating that the foreign entity sent him to a customer site in 
Qatar to independently provide installation, testing and support services shortly after he joined the 
company. The Petitioner's claim that it would need to provide three years of training to a new 
employee before he or she could provide similar services to its U.S. customers is therefore not 
adequately supported in the record. Rather, this evidence appears to be consistent with the information 
in the submitted product support engineer role description, which indicates that new hires undergo a 
fairly short period of training. 
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that there are unresolved inconsistencies in the record regarding 
the nature, scope and length of training provided to the organization's product support engineers. 
Further, the record lacks information and documentation regarding the specific training completed by 
the Beneficiary. While completion of company-specific training may support a claim of specialized 
knowledge, the Petitioner must still establish that the training conveyed knowledge that is not common 
in the industry and knowledge that could not be easily imparted to similarly qualified employees from 
outside the company. The evidence submitted does not sufficiently establish how long it would take 
an individual who meets the company's hiring criteria to acquire the knowledge needed to perform 
the duties of a product support engineer. Due to these deficiencies, we cannot make any meaningful 
comparison between the Beneficiary's knowledge and the knowledge held by other similarly 
employed workers in the industry and cannot conclude that the knowledge the Beneficiary possesses 
of the company products is "special knowledge." As emphasized above, it is the weight and type of 
evidence which establishes whether a given beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge 
Overall, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient explanations or evidence to support its claim that 
the Beneficiary possesses special knowledge of its products that is truly distinct or uncommon 
compared to knowledge generally possessed among similarly trained support engineers in the 
Petitioner's industry. 
We have also considered whether the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary possesses advanced 
knowledge. 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 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 within the organization. 
Such advanced knowledge must be supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart from the 
elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. 
As noted, the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart identifying the Beneficiary as one of four 
product support engineers working in the U.K. affiliate's customer support department and indicating 
that these engineers are supervised by a coordinator and a manager. The record reflects that the 
company has customers worldwide and that its U.K.-based employees are therefore expected to travel 
7 
to other countries, including the United States, to provide product support services. 3 Although 
requested by the Director, the Petitioner did not provide information that would allow a comparison 
between the Beneficiary and others working in similar positions within the organization in terms of 
duties, internal training, experience, and any advanced knowledge. Instead, the Petitioner emphasizes 
that its U.S.-based product support engineer left the company and that it has upcoming preventive 
maintenance and installation visits scheduled for North American customers. It did not articulate or 
support a claim that the U.S.-based position requires advanced knowledge of company processes or 
procedures, or that the Beneficiary was selected for transfer due to his advanced knowledge. Rather, 
most of the Petitioner's claims were based on his knowledge of the company's products and the 
unavailability of such knowledge in the market. 
Further, the Petitioner did not identify the company processes or procedures, if any, in which the 
Beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge. The record contains some copies of training presentations 
on company products that appear to have been authored or presented by the Beneficiary but did not 
explain the significance of this evidence. It appears they were likely presentations delivered to 
customers who use the company's instruments and that the organization's other product support 
engineers would be expected to deliver similar training presentations, as "training of new users at 
customer laboratories" is including in the role description for the position. The position description 
also indicates that the product support engineers are expected to spend a small portion of their time4 
writing technical procedures for troubleshooting and support as part of their regular duties; but without 
additional explanation, we cannot determine that this task involves or equates to "advanced 
knowledge" of company procedures. 
The evidence is therefore insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's expertise in the organization's 
processes and procedures is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and 
understanding in comparison to other workers in the organization. Here, the Petitioner's claims are 
not supported by evidence setting the Beneficiary's knowledge of company processes apart from the 
elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. 
While the Beneficiary's knowledge of certain products and related maintenance procedures may be 
advanced compared to a new hire, the Petitioner must still show that he possesses advanced knowledge 
in comparison to similarly employed workers within the foreign entity and that the knowledge he 
possesses could not be readily transferred to another employee with a similar technical skill set. The 
Petitioner did not provide the information needed to make such a comparison and has not established 
that the Beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a 
specialized knowledge employee consistent with USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-IB 
Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/policy­
memoranda. However, as discussed above, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to 
3 The role description for the U.K.-based position indicates that the position requires "extensive international travel" and 
involves providing technical support to customers worldwide. The Petitioner submitted a sampling of Service 
Reports" completed by the Beneficiary showing that he had provided on-site support to customers in 18 countries in 
Europe, Asia, North America, South America and Australia. 
4 A breakdown of the product support engineer position indicates that writing technical procedures is one of four duties 
that, in the aggregate, would require 10% of an employee's time. 
8 
establish that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is either special or advanced. While the 
Beneficiary may be performing a role that requires complex knowledge and that is beneficial to the 
Petitioner's competitiveness in the marketplace, these characteristics alone are not probative of his 
specialized knowledge . As noted in the memorandum , the "characteristics" listed by the Petitioner 
are only "factors that USCIS may consider when determining whether a beneficiary's knowledge is 
specialized." Id. The memorandum emphasizes that "ultimately, it is the weight and type of evidence 
that establishes whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge ." Id. at 13. 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge , we 
need not further address whether he 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 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge . Accordingly , the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9