dismissed L-1B Case: Technical Instruments

MATTER OF C-1-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 27, 20I6 
PETITION: FORM I-I29, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an importer and distributor of technical instruments, seeks to temporarily employ the 
I 
Beneficiary as a service and sales engineer under the L-IB nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(I5)(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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the evidence · 
of record did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he 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 the Director erred by 
applying an extremely strict and narrow interpretation of what may be considered specialized 
knowledge that is not supported by the statute, regulations, or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services' (USCIS) policy. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-I 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 IOI(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. !d. 
If an individual will be serving the United States employer in a managerial or executive capacity, a 
qualified beneficiary may be classified as an L-I A nonimmigrant alien. If a qualified beneficiary · 
will be rendering services in a capacity that involves "specialized knowledge," the beneficiary may be 
classified as an L-IB nonimmigrant alien. !d.· 
Matter ofC-1-, Inc. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the statutory definition of 
specialized knowledge: 
For purposes of section 101 (a)( 15)(L ), an alien is considered to be serving in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company i{ the alien has a special 
knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets or has an 
advanced level ofknowledge of processes and procedures ofthe company. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(D) defines 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 
application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in 
the organization's processes and procedures. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form I-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph 
(l)(l)(ii)(G) ofthis section .. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the 
services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position 
that was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the 
alien's prior education, training and employment qualifies him/her to perform 
the intended services in the United States; however the work in the United 
States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been employed abroad and would be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-1-, Inc. 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129 on December 18, 2015. In a letter in support of the petition, the 
Petitioner explained that it was established in February 2014 as a wholly-owned subsidiary of 
an Indian manufacturer and supplier of "complete solutions for a wide range · 
of weighing, and Laser applications." The Petitioner stated that the foreign entity has 140 
employees and specializes in the manufacture of high precision and micro precision balances, 
scientific equipment and instruments, and scales designed for a wide variety of applications 
including industrial, shipping, and household use. The foreign entity also offers specialized jewelry 
balances, machines and equipment and a 
launched in 2011 which the Petitioner described as "the first of its kind." 
The Petitioner stated that it has achieved rapid growth during its first full year of operations and 
requires a service and sales engineer "to support our existing customers, set up, adjust and service 
our range of technical devices as well as to instruct customers in their use and explain and 
demonstrate the technical uses of our products to potential customers. " It explained that it has been 
bringing engineers in from India as business visitors as needed , but now requires a full-time 
employee for these activities. With respect to the proposed role, the Petitioner stated: 
It is essential that the engineer be thoroughly familiar with our proprietary products 
specifically our sophisticated scales and balances and our 
The engineer's specialized knowledge of our technical devices, their operations, 
specifications , and advantages for our customers and prospective customers will 
allow us to maintain our competitivity [sic], improve customer relations and continue 
to increase sales by providing the high level service these products require and our 
business customers demand. 
The Petitioner emphasized that "highly specialized technical training and experience with our 
products is not generally available outside our company and especially not in a relatively new export · 
market such as the United States," and stated that its business will be hindered without an employee 
who possesses these specialized skills. 
Finally, with respect to the Beneficiary's qualifications, the Petitioner stated that he holds a 
bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering , joined the foreign entity in June 2013 as a service 
engineer, and currently serves as a senior service engineer with four service engineers reporting to 
him. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary "received specific training in both 
and analyzers as well as industrial laser devices" and that he "has tested our products 
before their launch into the market and prepared reports and applications for product certification in 
export markets which have enabled [the foreign entity] to increase export scales." 
The Petitioner submitted t he foreign entity ' s organizational chart, as well as product brochures for its 
different lines of equipment, scales, balances , and analyzers. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-1-, Inc. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) advising the Petitioner that additional information 
was required to establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he has been 
employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a capacity requiring specialized 
knowledge. Specifically, the Director requested more detailed information regarding the claimed 
specialized knowledge, how this knowledge is acquired within the organization, and the minimum 
amount of time required to attain this knowledge through training and experience. The Director 
further asked the Petitioner to provide evidence of the Beneficiary's training, education, and work 
experience, detailed descriptions of his foreign and proposed U.S. positions, and an explanation of 
how the Beneficiary's knowledge compares to that held by similarly employed individuals within 
the petitioning organization and within the industry. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a letter signed by 
who stated: 
the foreign entity's director, 
[The foreign entity] is a leading manufacturer and supplier of complete solutions for a 
wide range of weighing, and Laser applications with more than two 
decades of experience. Our innovative products and high quality services help 
customers around the globe to implement complex and quality-driven processes in 
their production and laboratory facilities in a time and cost efficient way. Our key 
customers include pharmaceutical, food, fundamental research, laboratory, education 
and jewelry enterprises. We are submitting technical information on 
weighing technology, metal 
analysis technology and Fiber Laser technology as prepared by [the Beneficiary]. 
Knowledge of all three of these advanced technologies is crucial to the service and 
support of our products and, expertise in all is rare. [The Beneficiary] has this expertise. 
We are also providing copies of troubleshooting tables developed by [the 
Beneficiary] to guide both our service personnel and our customers' technical staffs. 
His highly specialized technical training and experience with our products and three 
different advanced technologies is not generally available outside our company and 
especially not in a relatively new export market such as the United States. Not having 
an employee in the United States with the needed specialized skills will hinder our 
ability to· serve our U.S. customers and to develop our U.S. operations. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence of various documents authored by the Beneficiary, which the 
Petitioner described as: (1) visit reports written upon his completion of business trips as a service 
engineer, which included summaries of service issues encountered by customers and the solutions he · 
implemented; (2) an international certification report for non-automatic weighing balances intended 
to provide requirements and testing procedures for these instruments; (3) troubleshooting tables to be 
used by other service engineers and technicians who work with the company's analytical balances, . 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-1-, Inc. 
top loading balances, precision balances, gold testing machines, welding · 
machines, and micro balances; and ( 4) "information booklets" on the technical functioning and · 
practical uses of the company's laser technology, technology, and used for 
presentations to customers, potential customers, and their employees. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted a certificate of appreciation issued to the Beneficiary for his work 
towards obtaining certification for the company's products, and four testimonial 
letters from foreign customers confirming the Beneficiary's troubleshooting and technical support 
skills. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record did not establish that the 
Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been employed abroad or would be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. The Director emphasized that 
the record did not contain sufficient evidence to establish how or when the Beneficiary acquired the 
claimed specialized knowledge during his employment abroad, or sufficient evidence to allow 
USCIS to make comparisons between the Beneficiary's knowledge and knowledge typically 
possessed by other similarly employed workers at the foreign entity and in the Petitioner's industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary possess all of the characteristics of an L-1 B 
specialized knowledge worker according to the latest USC IS policy guidance on this issue, 1 and claims 
that the Director failed to take into account the impact the Beneficiary's transfer would have on the 
Petitioner's operations. The Petitioner explains that the Beneficiary is needed to train U.S. customers 
in the use, service,_ and troubleshooting of the Petitioner's products, and will eventually train other 
employees including new engineers to service equipment as the business grows. Finally, the Petitioner 
asserts that the Director applied a strict interpretation of what may be considered "specialized 
knowledge" that is not consistent with the statute, regulations, and USCIS guidance on the issue. 
In support of the appeal, the Petitioner submits a two-page document titled "Specialized Techniques 
in in which technology is described as an "evolving technology in the weighing 
industry" that is "the most accurate and specialized technology with comparison to other 
technologies." The document discusses techniques for mechanical assembly, scanner board · 
assembly, corner error removal, linearity, temperature calibration, and calibration of moisture 
balance, and notes that each technique requires some training and specialized knowledge. 
I 
B. Analysis . 
Upon review of the evidence of record, including the Petitioner's submission on appeal, we find that 
the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he 
was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge 
capacity as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). · 
1 
The Petitioner cites to USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0 Ill, L-1 B Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 20 15), 
https:/ 
/www. uscis .gov /laws/po !icy-memoranda. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-1-, Inc. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility. Matter of 
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence 
that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the benefit sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
I 
'376 (AAO 2010). In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of . 
evidence alone but by its quality. !d. users examines each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. 
In order to establish
· eligibility, a petitioner must show that the individual beneficiary will be 
employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The statutory definition 
of specialized knowledge at Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act is comprised of two equal but distinct 
subparts. First, an individual is considered to be employed in a capacity involving specialized 
knowledge if that person "has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in 
international markets." Second, an individual is considered to be serving in a capacity involving 
specialized knowledge if that person "has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and · 
procedures of the. company." See also 8 C.P.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 definition. 
~. 
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. users 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 . . , 
As both "spe-cial" 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 a 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 advanced or special, and that the 
beneficiary's position requires such knowledge. 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has special knowledge of its 
proprietary products including "sophisticated scales and balances and our 
" The Petitioner later added that knowledge of metal analysis technology, and 
. fiber laser technology is required to service and support its products and that it is this "rare" . 
expertise that qualifies the Beneficiary as an employee with specialized knowledge. 
6 
· ~ ': .. 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-1-, Inc. 
Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or • 
services and its application in international markets, a 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. Knowledge that is 
commonly held throughout the petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person 
to another is not considered specialized. 
Here, the Petitioner's claim rests on the fact that its products are proprietary and highly sophisticated 
and the fact that its U.S. office is relatively new and does not currently have a service engineer to 
provide training and product support services for local customers. The current statutory and 
regulatory definitions of"specialized knowledge" do not include a requirement that the beneficiary's 
knowledge be proprietary. However, a petitioner might satisfy the current standard by establishing · 
that a beneficiary's purported specialized knowledge is proprietary, as long as the petitioner 
demonstrates that the knowledge is either "special" or "advanced." By itself, simply claiming that 
knowledge is proprietary will not satisfy the statutory standard. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation or evidence to support its claim that the · 
Beneficiary's proprietary 
knowledge is truly distinct or uncommon. We note that the Director · 
requested relevant information in the RFE that would have assisted in making this determination, 
such as how long it takes for a trained engineer to acquire the knowledge needed to perform the 
duties expected of a service engineer, how the knowledge required to support its products is different 
from that generally found among engineers in the industry, how much training the Beneficiary : 
received in order to perform the duties of the position, how many other engineers have received 
similar training, and detailed descriptions of the Beneficiary's current and proposed duties 
explaining which specific duties require specialized knowledge. While the Petitioner responded to 
the RFE, it did not include any of this relevant information. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (quoting Matter of Treasure 
Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
With respect to the Beneficiary's education, training and work experience, the Petitioner provided 
evidence that he has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering awarded in 2012, joined the 
foreign entity as a service engineer in June 2013, and assumed the position of senior service engineer 
at some later date not specified in the record. The Petitioner stated that that he "received specific 
training in both and analyzers as well as irt industrial lasers." However, this 
was the extent of the information provided regarding the Beneficiary's training; the Petitioner did 
not submit any description or evidence of that training, such as course titles and completion dates, 
the content of the training, a description of any on-the-job training, or information regarding the · 
number of other employees who have completed similar training. While completion of company­
specific training can 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. Without this • 
evidence, we cannot determine how long it would take an engineer with similar qualifications to 
acquire the knowledge needed to perform the duties of a service engineer. 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-1-, Inc. 
The Petitioner described its industrial, scientific, and other scales, instruments, and equipment as · 
proprietary and noted that it launched the first ' ' in 
2011. The Petitioner also provided brochures and technical information regarding the products, but 
did not explain how the knowledge needed to maintain and service its products is uncommon . 
compared to the knowledge possessed by service engineers working for other companies that make 
similar products. The Petitioner notes that manufacturers in its industry must meet national and 
international quality standards, and does not explain how. or whether its own products are 
differentiated. Without this information, 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 his knowledge is truly special. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner provided evidence of various reports and technical documents 
the Beneficiary created in his role as a service engineer with the foreign entity. While we consider 
this evidence of his qualifications for the offered position, this evidence is insufficient to overcome 
the evidentiary deficiencies discussed above. Again, it is the weight and type of evidence which 
establishes whether or not the Beneficiary actually possesses specialized knowledge. 
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 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 states that the Beneficiary serves as senior service engineer in India, with four 
regional service engineers reporting to him. However, it did not provide any other information 
regarding other service engineers employed by the foreign entity, such as information regarding their 
training, professional background, and length of experience. Again, going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting th~ burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (quoting Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 
14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Despite his "senior" job title, we cannot determine that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced in relation to the Petitioner's other employees if we have no 
information regarding those employees' relative knowledge and experience. 
The Petitioner relies in part on the Beneficiary's senior or supervisory role in support of its claim 
that his knowledge of its processes is advanced and also suggests that his knowledge would be 
advanced in relation to other U.S. employees because it does not currently employ a service engineer 
in the United States. However, we cannot determine that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced 
based on his position in the foreign entity's organizational chart. The Petitioner did not provide 
evidence of any training he completed in company processes upon being hired by the foreign entity 
or explain the processes or procedures in which he possesses advanced knowledge. 
8 
Matter ofC-1-, Inc. 
The evidence of record supports the Petitioner's claim that it has only four employees, but it has not 
identified these employees or the duties they perform. The evidence is 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. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary possesses "various 
characteristics of a worker with qualifying specialized knowledge" as set forth in USCIS Policy 
Memorandum PM-601-011, supra, at 8. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is either 
special or advanced. While the Beneficiary may be filling a role that may be beneficial to the 
Petitioner's competitiveness in the marketplace, this characteristic alone is 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" and such factors must be supported by evidence. ld. The memorandum highlights that 
"ultimately, it is the weight and type of evidence that establishes whether the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge." ld. at 10. 
We do not doubt that the Beneficiary is a highly skilled employee who is well qualified for the 
offered position. However, for the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not 
establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he has been employed 
abroad and will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity with the Petitioner in the United 
States. See Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above reason. In visa petition 
proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-1-, Inc., ID# 48925 (AAO Oct. 27, 2016) 
9