dismissed L-1B Case: Semiconductor Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20504047 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 30, 2022 
Form I-129, Petition for L-IB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, a lithography solutions provider in the semiconductor industry, seeks to continue to 
employ the Beneficiary temporarily in the position of a "customer support engineer" under the L-IB 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 1 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, as required, 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. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we conclude that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary held a specialized knowledge position for at least one year during his 
employment abroad . Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal. Because the identified basis for dismissal 
is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's 
appellate arguments regarding the Beneficiary's proposed employment. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 
which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see alsoMatterofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 
(BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible) . 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B nonimmigrantvisaclassification, a qualifying organization must have 
employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position requiring specialized 
knowledge for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
1 The record shows that the Beneficiary presented Forms I-l 29S, NonirnrnigrantPetitions Based onBlanketL Petition , at 
the U.S. Consulates in Osaka , Japan, in 2016 and in 2019 . Both times, the petitions were approved by U.S. Department of 
State (DOS) consular officers. Under the most recent deference policy, "USCIS officers consider , but do not defer to, 
previous eligibility determinations on petitions or applications made by . .. DOS. Officers make determinations on the 
petition filed with USCIS and corresponding evidence on record ." 2 USCJS Poli cy Manual A.4(B)(2), 
https ://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. There is no indication in the record that the Director's actions were not consistent 
with this guidance. 
admission into the United States and the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to 
continue rendering his or her services to the same emp layer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. Section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. The Petitioner must provide, 
"Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was manageriaL 
executive, or involved specialized knowledge." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). The petitioner must also 
establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her to pe1form 
the intended services in the United States. Id. 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE CAPACITY 
In the denial, the Director observed that in the initial supporting statement, the Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary was employed by its Japanese affiliate I, from April 1, 2011 
until June 30, 2016, and that within this timeframe he assumed the position of "Customer Suppmt 
Engineer" (CSE) from October 1, 2015 until June 30, 2016, a total of nine months. Because the 
Beneficiary is required to have held a specialized knowledge position abroad 2 for at least one year and 
his role as CSE lasted only nine months, that position alone is not sufficient to establish that the 
Beneficiary met the foreign employment requirement. As such, the Director determined that the field 
service engineer position, which the Beneficiary is claimed to have held prior to that of CSE, must 
also be considered in determining whether he was employed abroad in a specialized knowledge 
capacity for one year in the three years that preceded his application for admission to the United States. 
Based on the Beneficiary's June 2016 admission to the United States to work for the petitioning entity, 
the three-year period during which the one year of qualifying foreign employment must have taken 
place is from June 2013 to June 2016. 3 Accordingly, the issue we will address in this decision is 
whether the Petitioner established that during those three years, the Beneficiary was employed in a 
specialized knowledge capacity for at least one year. 
As a preliminary matter, 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. 
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 statutmy 
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 
2 The Petitioner does not claim thatthe Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
3 The Petitioner provided a record of the Beneficiary's arrivals to and departures from the United States. The record shows 
that prior to the Beneficiary's U.S. arrival on June 30, 2016, he arrived to the United States on February 28, 2016, and 
remained until March 24, 2016. It is unclearwhetherthat stay was related to the Beneficiary's employment. 
2 
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. 
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 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 such knowledge is 
typically gained within the organization and explain how and when the individual beneficiary gained 
such knowledge. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner provided a supporting statement claiming that the Beneficiary has 
special and advanced knowledge with respect to various proprietary tools, processes, products, and 
systems, which were listed and described in a corresponding chart. The Petitioner also claimed that 
the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge in various processes and procedures that were required to 
execute his daily tasks and provided a separate chart containing a percentage breakdown listing the 
Beneficiary's previously assigned job duties. However, the Petitioner did not specify which of the 
Beneficiary's positions - that of field service engineer or the more recently held position of CSE -
involved the listed job duties and implementation of the various proprietary too ls, processes, products, 
and systems or the processes and procedures described in the provided charts. Likewise, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary assumed the role of "shift leader" with respect to a particular project, took 
trainings "to gain and expand his specialized knowledge," and provided training to other employees 
with whom he shared his "specialized skillset and knowledge," but it did not state when these actions 
were completed or establish that they were completed within the context of the Beneficiary's position 
as field service engineer. This detail is critical given the facts and circumstances presented herein; if 
the elements of what is claimed to comprise the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge were exclusive 
to his most recent foreign position of CSE, then the Beneficiary would be precluded from meeting the 
statutory requirement of at least one year of employment in a specialized knowledge capacity, given 
that he only held the CSE position for nine months. 
3 
After reviewing the record, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE). In response, the 
Petitionerprovided two statements from the "EUV Shift Group Lead." Although one of the statements 
focused primarily on the Beneficiary's employment in the United States, it included a briefreference 
to the Beneficiary's foreign employment, noting that his previously held positions included those of 
"EUV engineer" and "shift manager." No mention was made of the field service engineer position, 
which was the only position specified in the initial supp01iing statement. As such, it is unclear whether 
the position of field service engineer was interchangeable with one of the other positions or whether 
it was altogether a separate position, thus potentially making it one of three positions held during the 
Beneficiary's employment with the foreign affiliate. The Petitioner must resolve this incongruity with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter o fHo, 19 I&N Dec. 5 82, 5 91-
92 (BIA 1988). Although the second statement from the "EUV Shift Group Lead" listed processes, 
procedures, and methodologies in which the Beneficiary is claimed to have gained specialized 
knowledge, that knowledge appears to have been specifically attributed to the Beneficiary's CSE 
position, which he held for less than one year. None of the other positions was specifically discussed, 
nor was a timeline provided showing when and for how long the Beneficiary held each position prior 
to assuming his position as CSE. 
Fmiher, the response statements do not clarify which of the Beneficiary's positions with the foreign 
affiliate are claimed to have been in a specialized knowledge capacity. This deficiency is particularly 
noteworthy, given that at least one full year of employment in a specialized knowledge capacity is 
required to meet the statutory requirements for the benefit sought herein. Because the Beneficiary 
held multiple positions during his employment with the foreign affiliate, it is critical for the Petitioner 
to establish a timeline for each position and to specify which position(s) is or are deemed to be in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. Merely listing the Beneficiary's job duties and training or specifying 
the processes, procedures, and methodologies in which he is claimed to have gained specialized 
knowledge is insufficient without information as to which of the Beneficiary's positions entailed the 
use of such knowledge and the length of time such position was held. It is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013); MatterofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 
799,806 (AAO 2012); Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 588-89 (BIA 1988); Matter ofBrantigan, 11 
I&N Dec. 493,495 (BIA 1966);MatterojD-Y-S-C-,AdoptedDecision2019-02(AAO Oct. 11, 2019). 
The Petitioner's RFE response also included an organizational chart reflecting the Beneficiary's 
position with the foreign affiliate as of March 1, 2015. One of the Petitioner's RFE response 
statements referenced that chart, claiming that it shows the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge 
position within the foreign entity. We disagree. Although the chart identifies the Beneficiary by name 
and shows his position title as "FSE," which presumably represents "field service engineer," no 
information was provided regarding the duties associated with that position, nor did the Petitioner 
establish that the position required specialized knowledge. As noted above, only the Beneficiary's 
latest position abroad as CSE was specifically addressed in the Petitioner's submissions. 
In the denial, the Director quoted information that the Petitioner provided in one of its original 
supporting statements, where the Petitioner identified two positions that the Beneficiary is claimed to 
have held during his period of employment with the foreign entity. The Director highlighted the 
p01iion of the supporting statement where the Petitioner focused on the Beneficiary's latest position 
4 
as CSE and stated that he held that position for less than one year. The Director explained that because 
the Beneficiary did not hold the position of CSE for one full year, he would consider the position the 
held prior to that of CSE in order to ascertain whether the Beneficiary acquired the requisite one year 
of specialized knowledge employment abroad with the qualifying foreign entity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary acted as shift leader and used "his specialized 
knowledge and expertise in [the organization]'s proprietary tools, processes, and methodologies." 
However, the Petitioner primarily relies on excerpts from one of the RFE response statements to 
support this claim, despite the statement's focus on the Beneficiary's position as CSE to establish that 
he was employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. Although the Petitioner reiterates the job duty 
chart and list of the proprietary tools, processes, and methodologies that it claims are indicators of the 
Beneficiary's specialized knowledge, it is unclear how this information pertains to any position other 
than that of CSE. As noted above, because the Beneficiary only held the CSE position for only nine 
months, that position, by itself, is not sufficient to establish that he was employed abroad in a 
specialized knowledge capacity for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(iv) (Evidence that the 
alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was managerial, executive , or involved 
specialized knowledge) . Likewise, the Petitioner's reiteration of the Beneficiary's trainings also does 
not advance the claim that the Beneficiary was employed in a specialized knowledge capacity for the 
required duration, as it is not clear when those trainings took place or that they conveyed knowledge 
pertaining to a position the Beneficiary held for at least one year. As stated earlier, the Petitioner bears 
the burden of establishing eligibility for the benefit sought herein. See id. 
Furthermore, the appeal brief contains statements that undermine the Petitioner's claim regarding the 
Beneficiary's employment with the foreign affiliate . Namely, we point to the Petitioner's claim that 
the Beneficiary was employed abroad "from January 04, 2011 to June 30, 2016 in the specialized 
knowledge role of Technical Support Engineer." 4 This employment start date is inconsistent with the 
dates provided in the petition form, the initial supporting statements, and with the statements provided 
in response to the RFE, all of which identify April 2011 as the start of the Beneficiary's employment 
with the foreign affiliate. Also, if the Beneficiary assumed a specialized knowledge position from the 
start of his employment with the foreign affiliate, as claimed, we can only assume that the knowledge 
was obtained prior to, rather than during, the Beneficiary's employment with the qualifying entity. If 
so, this would undermine the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge pertains 
to the foreign entity's proprietary tools, systems, and processes, as the Beneficiary could not have had 
training or experience in those tools, systems, and processes as of the date his employment 
commenced. The Petitioner must resolve the discrepancies in the record with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies . Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 5 82, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Further, the Petitioner's broad reference to the Beneficiary's "role of Technical Support Engineer'' 
belies the fact that this role appears to have been comprised of multiple positions, as discussed above. 
It is the Petitioner's burden to establish that at least one of those positions required specialized 
knowledge and was held by the Beneficiary for at least one year during the relevant three-year period. 
Equally critical is the Petitioner's reliance, in part, on the Beneficiary's training to support the claim 
that he acquired specialized knowledge. Despite claiming that training contributed to the Beneficiary 
4 Bee a use the Beneficiary was admitted to the United States to work for the petitioning entity in June 2016 , the Petitioner 
must establish that his continuous oneyearofqualifyingemploymentabroad took place between June2013 and June 2016. 
5 
obtaining specialized knowledge, the record lacks information about the dates and duration of the 
training. Without this information, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary used the knowledge he 
gained through training to work in a specialized knowledge position for at least one year during the 
relevant three-year period. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
In this matter, although the record contains four training certificates showing that the Beneficiary 
completed four training courses, the dates on the certificates indicate that three of those courses were 
completed in 2019, when the Beneficiary was already working for the U.S. entity. Given that the 
Beneficiary arguably onboarded with the U.S. entity after having acquired specialized knowledge 
abroad, any trainings he would have taken once already in the United States would not be relevant for 
the purpose of establishing how he acquired specialized knowledge that resulted in at least one year 
of specialized knowledge employment abroad. Although one of the Beneficiary's four courses was 
completed in May 2011, thus during his employment with the Japanese affiliate, the Petitioner did not 
discuss that course's length or content. As such, the completion certificate for the 2011 course is not 
sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary acquired specialized knowledge and thus held a 
specialized knowledge position with the foreign entity for at least one year during the three years prior 
to his admission to the United States to work for the Petitioner. 
Lastly, the appeal brief recreates a previously submitted chart which lists the Beneficiary's foreign job 
duties and provides a brief description of the claimed specialized knowledge each duty requires and 
the number of years it took to obtain such knowledge. For instance, one of the Beneficiary's duties 
was to "execute[] multiple complex repairs," which required the ability to "recognize each work's 
complexity and assign the proper resources based on each one's competencies." According to the 
chart, this knowledge took seven years to acquire; if so, it is unlikely that the knowledge pe1iained 
specifically to the Japanese affiliate since the Beneficiary's employment with that entity lasted no 
more than five and a half years. The chart also lists duties that are associated with knowledge that the 
Petitioner claims takes five years to acquire. Given that the Beneficiary's entire period of employment 
with the foreign affiliate was just over five years, if the knowledge that is claimed to be specialized 
was acquired over the course of five years, then it cannot be said that the Beneficiary used that 
knowledge for at least one year prior to commencing employment with the Petitioner. Although 
several duties are associated with know ledge that the Petitioner claims took the Beneficiary three years 
to acquire, it did not clarify when the knowledge was acquired or whether it was acquired during the 
Beneficiary's employment with the foreign affiliate. It is critical for the Petitioner to establish 
precisely when the Beneficiary acquired the knowledge that it claims is specialized. Only then would 
we have the in formation needed to determine whether the Beneficiary used the claimed specialized 
knowledge for at least one year during his employment with the foreign affiliate. 
In sum, the Petitioner primarily focused on the Beneficiary's position as CSE to establish that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity. However, the record indicates 
that the Beneficiary did not occupy that position for at least one year. Because the Petitioner did not 
adequately discuss any other position the Beneficiary previously held within the same organization or 
establish when he acquired the knowledge that it deems specialized, we cannot conclude that the 
Beneficiary was employed in a specialized knowledge capacity for the requisite one-year period. 
6 
In light of the evidentiary deficiencies described above, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity for one year within the three 
years that preceded the Beneficiary's application for admission to the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal will be dismissed. 
7