dismissed L-1B Case: Telecommunications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20613408 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 6, 2022 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, an electrical contractor, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily in the position of 
a "broadband technology specialist" under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)(l 5)(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 denovo review, we conclude that the Petitioner did not 
meet that burden. Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B nonimmigrant visa classification, the beneficiary must seek to enter 
the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a specialized knowledge capacity. Section 101( a)(15)(L) of the Act The 
petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education , training, and employment qualify him 
or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner operates in the telecommunications industry as a designer and installer of high-capacity 
broadband telecommunication outside plant facilities (OSP), including aerial and underground 
deployment of coaxial and fiber optic cables and termination equipment for long haul, feeder, and 
distribution routes. The Petitioner states that it seeks to expand its "specialized skilled workforce" to 
meet its current contractual obligations with clients seeking broadband deployment services. The 
Petitioner plans to compensate the Beneficiary approximately $42,000 annually for his specialized 
know ledge in evaluating and installing fiber optic cables and coaxial cab le design production, content, 
and document generation, thereby supporting construction crews in their placement of fiber 
infrastructure. The Petitioner states that to attain the position of broadband technology specialist 
(BTS) within its organization, the job candidate must have at least five years of experience as an 
electrical and telecom line technician as well as crew leadership industry experience and training. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether the Beneficiary has been employed abroad and will be employed 
in the United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
As a threshold issue, we must detennine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. If the evidence is insufficient to establish that he possesses 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's past and intended future 
employment involve specialized knowledge. 1 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if they have: (1) a "special" knowledge of the 
petitioning organization's product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" 
level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the petitioning organization. Section 
214(c)(2)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). A petitioner may establish eligibility by 
submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the statutmy 
definition. 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, dete1mining 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. 
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 
1 The Petitioner does not claim thatthe Beneficiary was employed a broad in an executive ormanagerialcapacity. 
2 
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 specificitythe 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 broadly referred to the Beneficiary's knowledge as "specialized" 
and did not specify whether it was making that claim on the basis that the knowledge is "special" or 
"advanced," a clarification that the Petitioner was instructed to provide in a request for evidence 
(RFE). Rather, the Petitioner identified three company-specific cable deployment methodologies -
"DL1SC_ 101 O," "DLl SC_ 1012," and "DLl SC_ 1014" - claiming that they were created "to provide 
safe, efficient, and timely outcomes when faced with unique challenges during initial broadband 
service implementation." However, the Petitioner did not describe those methodologies, explain what 
about those methodologies requires their user to possess specialized knowledge, or identify specific 
characteristics that distinguish those methodologies from ones used within the telecom industry. 
The Petitioner also provided the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown, which was broken down in to two 
categories - "broadband line deployment," which would account for 70% of Beneficiary's time, and 
"broadband switching deployment," which account for the remaining 30%. Some of the duties listed 
include installation of fiber optic and coaxial cables and broadband switching elements, reading and 
interpreting broadband transmission cabling and switching network diagrams, digging trenches or 
climbing poles to install or maintain broadband cables, clearing away hazards such as tree branches, 
troubleshooting outages and problems with broadband cables and switches, performing testing and 
repairs, adhering to company standards and industry regulations, and providing status reports to the 
supervisor. Although the Petitioner claimed that I 00% of these duties involve specialized knowledge, 
it did not elaborate on or support this claim with information about its organization's products or 
services or its processes and procedures; nor did the Petitioner distinguish the Beneficiary's duties 
from those performed by others holding a BTS position within the telecom industry. 
Further, although the Petitioner highlighted the six months of in-house training and six months of 
"mentoring" it requires before deeming an employee a "proficient" BTS, it did not explain why it 
sought to contrast its BTS training from the telecom industry's training of a "Basic OSP Broadband 
installer," as opposed to other BTS positions within the industry. Although the Petitioner seemingly 
indicates that its BTS position is comparable to that of an OSP broadband installer, it does not provide 
evidence, such as the latter position's job duties and knowledge requirements, to support this position. 
Thus, despite noting that the training for a basic OSP broadband installer is significantly less rigorous 
- requiring only three months of training in broadband deployment technology - as compared to 
training for a BTS position within the petitioning organization, it is unclear how, if at all, the distinction 
is relevant in this case or how it supports the claim that specialized knowledge is required to perform 
the duties of the Beneficiary's position as a BTS. Fmihermore, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner 
3 
provided conflicting information regarding the length and components of its BTS training. Namely, 
the response includes a statement discussing BTS job criteria and a chart listing employees along with 
their respective salaries, duties, and job prerequisites. The chart states thatthe employees holdingBTS 
positions are required to have "BTS Certificate via 24 Months Training+ high school," while the RFE 
response statement makes the claim that the Beneficiary acquired his specialized knowledge "through 
an intensive 18 months BTS [t]raining after successfully completing a [six] months Introductory [ and] 
Evaluation Training Program." It is unclear whether the 24 months of training listed in the chart is 
synonymous with the 18 months of "intensive" BTS training coupled with the six-month introductmy 
and evaluation training program referenced in the statement. Moreover, the information in the RFE 
response documents, which indicate that there is an 18- or 24-month training requirement for a BTS, 
is notably different from what was claimed in the original supporting statement, where, as noted above, 
the Petitioner mentioned six months of in-house training followed by a six-month period of 
"mentoring" prior to being deemed "proficient." Because the original statement did not mention a 
period of training that goes beyond one year, it is inconsistent with the chart and with the supplemental 
statement provided in response to the RFE. The Petitioner must resolve these ambiguities and 
inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). In this instance, although the Petitioner provided 
a training record showing that the Beneficiary was issued a ce1iificate for completing a BTS training 
program in December 2019, the record does not list the training start date or the number of hours, 
days, or weeks it took to complete it prior to being issued the completion certificate. 
In addition, putting aside the discrepancy concerning the length of the training, the record does not 
establish that the training program conveyed content that was indicative of specialized knowledge, 
i.e., "special" knowledge of the petitioning organization's product or services or an "advanced" level 
of knowledge of the organization's processes and procedures. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). First, we note that the training record contains only the names and 
training codes but does not include content descriptions for the 18 components covered in the training. 
Although the heading of each component offers general information about the component's subject 
matter, it does not serve as evidence that the course content conveyed specialized knowledge of the 
organization's products or services or its processes and procedures. Thus, while nine of the 18 topics 
covered in the training were assigned a code starting with "BTS," there is no evidence that the 
Beneficiary gained specialized knowledge from courses titled "Orientation - BTS Training Program," 
"Service problem management and problem resolution," "Outside Plan [] evolving methods and 
techniques," "Customer problem resolution," and "Customer retention." Likewise, there is no 
evidence that courses titled "Broadband Skills Assessment," "Field Work Fundamentals," "Leadership 
Skills Assessment & Review," "Safety Skills Assessment," "Safety Techniques," and "Engineering 
Print Reading" were part of a path to gaining specialized knowledge of the Petitioner's products or 
services or its processes and procedures. 
Lastly, the record includes expert opinions froml I and ________ the 
latter of which has been resubmitted on appeal. Regarding the former, despite referencing the 
Beneficiary's proffered positionj I references an entirely different beneficiary than the one 
who is the subject of this petition. As such, it is unclear what evidence, if any] I reviewed 
with regard to the Beneficiary. Thus, to the extent thatl opinion is based on evidence that 
pertains to an entirely different beneficiary, it is not relevant to this Beneficiary's eligibility. Although 
the other expert opinion focuses on the Beneficiary's position and does not mention any beneficiary 
4 
in particular, the expert relied on evidence that we find to be lacking probative value, such as the 
Beneficiary's training and job duties, and expressed no awareness as to the statute and regulations that 
pertain to specialized knowledge. Thus, while we may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as 
expert testimony, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to an opinion that is not in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 
(Comm'r 1988). 
In sum, we find that the evidence in the record does not establish that the Beneficiary attained 
specialized knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services or its processes and 
procedures. Accordingly, in light of the evidentiary deficiencies described above, the Petitioner has 
not established that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal will be dismissed. 
5