dismissed L-1B Case: Tile Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Inunigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-P-G-, LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 11, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a tile manufacturing company, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as a "Ball Mill & Spray Dryer Operator" under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 10l(a)(l5)(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 record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary was employed abroad with the foreign parent entity 
for the requisite time period; and (2) that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is both special and 
advanced and provides additional evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
for the required one year prior to coming to the United States to work for the U.S. entity. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish 
that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he was employed abroad and would 
be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. Therefore, we will dismiss 
the appeal. However, we find that the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to show that the 
Beneficiary has the required period of employment abroad and we will therefore withdraw this issue 
as a basis for denial. 
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 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a specialized knowledge capacity. Id. The petitioner 
Matter ofW-P-G-, LLC 
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). 
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 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a specialized knowledge capacity. Id. 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is a tile manufacturer that seeks to expand its existing U.S. manufacturing plant. It 
referred to proprietary manufacturing processes that include "raw materials, milling, production, 
quality inspections, and packaging" and claimed that its processes are "essential" to the creation of 
"top[-]quality ceramic tile." The Petitioner did not describe the manufacturing process or specify the 
proprietary characteristics that distinguish them from other processes in the tile manufacturing 
industry. Regardless, the Petitioner claimed that the foreign technicians have specialized knowledge 
of its proprietary processes and are therefore "integral" in providing technical training to new 
employees. It also stated that the foreign employees' specialized knowledge will allow them to offer 
"process support and stabilize production." The Petitioner noted three skill levels among the 
technicians and explained that employees are required to take aptitude tests to advance to the next 
technical level. It stated that the Beneficiary's skill level qualifies him to train new employees and 
that he will be paid $30,000 per year plus benefits. 1 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the 
United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
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. 2 
A beneficiary is deemed 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. A 
1 The Petitioner states in a letter submitted with the petition that it will also provide "an allowance of $9,600 for housing, 
$6,120 for food, $2,000 for transportation, and $1,916 for medical insurance." 
2 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
2 
Matter ofW-P-G-, LLC 
petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered 
position satisfy either prong of the statutory 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 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 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. 
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 the Beneficiary's employment history showing that he 
worked for the foreign entity and its affiliate from July 2013 to May 2017 and that he assumed the 
position of "Ball Mill & Spray Dryer Operator" during his employment for each entity. Although 
the Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's job duties, it did not explain why specialized knowledge is 
required to perform them. The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary underwent training and 
obtained a certificate on spray dyer operation; however, it did not provide a copy of the certificate or 
establish that undergoing the training was a required step in the process of acquiring the 
Beneficiary's claimed level of specialized knowledge. The Petitioner went on to discuss the 
graduated skill levels among the operators in its tile manufacturing process stating that it would take 
3 
Matter ofW-P-G-, LLC 
six to nine months to train "an unskilled worker to become a Level 1 operator in tile manufacturing" 
and that it would take another year for a technician at that level to attain "Level 3 technician status." 
However, the Petitioner provided a job description that does not indicate that the Beneficiary's job 
duties progressively changed to correspond with the increasing skill levels; it is therefore unclear 
when the Beneficiary attained the specialized knowledge he is claimed to have gained over the 
course of a nearly four-year period of employment. Despite claiming that specialized knowledge is 
required to understand and work with "the variable and dynamic differences in raw materials" and 
the "ambient conditions which affect the aesthetics of the product," the Petitioner did not state 
precisely when the Beneficiary gained knowledge of these elements, nor did it establish that such 
knowledge corresponds to the highest skill level. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director acknowledged the Beneficiary's training in spray dryer 
operations, but stated that the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's knowledge, education, 
training, and employment does not establish that he has knowledge that is either "special" or 
"advanced." The Director instructed the Petitioner to provide evidence of the knowledge required to 
carry out the duties of the foreign and U.S. positions, identify the products, processes, or procedures 
that require specialized knowledge, explain how the Beneficiary's knowledge is either "special" or 
"advanced," and discuss how that knowledge compares to others within the employer or others 
within the industry among others who perform similar type of work. 
In response, the Petitioner explained that a tile manufacturer's success depends on its tile body 
formulation and preparation as well as its tile product development; it stated that each tile factory has 
its own secret tile body formula and processing parameters that are adjusted by an "experienced 
body prep technician." The Petitioner indicated that the body preparation process "requires 
extremely good coordination of the body prep operators trained by [the Beneficiary]," who will also 
adjust the viscosity and other production parameters to ensure efficiency and avoid loss of product; it 
claimed that the Beneficiary's experience and ability to adjust these parameters is critical to the 
company's productivity, competitiveness, and financial position. It did not, however, describe the 
company's specific processes or procedures or explain how they differ from the processes and 
procedures of other tile manufacturers. Further, although the Petitioner claimed that there are few 
operators like the Beneficiary in the U.S. tile industry, it did not explain how the Beneficiary's 
knowledge of its processes and procedures differs from those of other operators within the industry. 
The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The Petitioner also pointed to the Beneficiary's five years of experience in the foreign entity's body 
preparation department as well as his knowledge of relevant safety and environmental regulations 
and stated that the Beneficiary will use that experience to train new operators. It discussed training 
timelines specifying six months as the required period of training an operator must undergo to 
become "independent" at the level one skill competency and up to 12 months for level two 
competency, noting that an unspecified amount of additional time would be needed to train a 
"worker supervisor." However, the Petitioner did not specify the skills required to attain each level 
of knowledge or establish how each level corresponds to a progression in skill difficulty; it also did 
4 
.
Matter ofW-P-G-, LLC 
not state how or when the Beneficiary obtained the knowledge that is claimed to be "special" and 
"advanced," beyond pointing to his years of employment with the foreign entity. Likewise, although 
the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown, it did not establish that specialized 
knowledge is required to perform the listed job duties. 
In the denial decision, the Director found that the submitted evidence did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's foreign and proposed positions require either special knowledge of the company's 
products that is uncommon in the industry and could not be easily transferred, or an advanced level 
of knowledge or expertise of the organization's processes and procedures. The Director further 
found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of the Beneficiary's training for spray 
dry operation or establish that the Beneficiary acquired knowledge that is not generally found within 
the tile manufacturing industry. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's knowledge is both "special" and "advanced" 
and offers the opinion of . a consultant in the tile manufacturing industry. 
states that he was "directly involved with the personnel from the parent company operations and 
processes" and was employed by the Petitioner during building and start-up of its tile manufacturing 
facility in Tennessee. The letter offers an opinion that is based on employment with 
the Petitioner and a six-month period observing the Beneficiary. points to the 
Beneficiary's "specialized capabilities" and states that his knowledge of the Petitioner's ball mill and 
spray dryer is "unique and greatly developed" and "distinct" as compared to similar employees 
within the U.S. tile industry because the Beneficiary worked at two different factories in China 
within the larger organization and is familiar with the organization's ball mill and spray dryer 
procedures. 
The letter also discusses the Petitioner's procedures with respect to its use of the ball mill and spray 
dryer noting that the Beneficiary plays a critical role in that process because of his understanding of 
the equipment and process testing that result in a quality finished product. does not, 
however, reference the terms "special" or "advanced" within the immigration law context, nor does 
he identify specific characteristics that demonstrate the Beneficiary's knowledge as being "unique 
and greatly developed" as compared to other employees within the same entity. He also does not 
elaborate or clarify how the Beneficiary's knowledge is distinct from others within the same 
industry. 
Further, generally refers to "U.S. competitors" that use "pre-processed raw materials" as 
distinguished from the Petitioner's use of "crude bulk raw materials," but he does not clarify whether 
there are other competitors in the industry that use similar materials and employ individuals with 
knowledge that is similar to that of the Beneficiary. Although discusses a similar 
training timeline as the one previously mentioned in the Petitioner 's RFE response and claims that 
there are practical and theoretical components to the training, his statement does not add to our 
understanding as to the types of practical and theoretical knowledge an individual must gain at each 
skill level, nor is it apparent how and when the Beneficiary himself was trained in these elements 
and when he is claimed to have attained a specialized level of knowledge. 
5 
.
Matter ofW-P-G-, LLC 
We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opm10ns statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. However, where an 
opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to 
accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 
1988). Although may be correct in his assessment of the logistical difficulties in starting 
an operation like the Petitioner's in an area where the necessary pool of personnel is lacking, such an 
assessment does not establish that the Beneficiary's knowledge is either "special" or "advanced." 
A petitioner's statements may provide persuasive evidence of specialized knowledge if they are 
detailed, specific, and credible. Here, the Petitioner asks us to put great weight on its statements 
regarding the Beneficiary's knowledge of its ball mill and spray dryer and his use of this equipment 
in the tile manufacturing process. However, the record lacks probative evidence demonstrating how 
and when the Beneficiary gained the training that resulted in knowledge that is claimed to be 
"special" and "advanced" or evidence that the Beneficiary must possess specialized knowledge to 
carry out his listed duties with the foreign and U.S. entities. 
For the above reasons, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses special or 
advanced knowledge. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. The appeal 
will be dismissed for this reason. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofW-P-G-, LLC, ID# 2254713 (AAO Mar. 11, 2019)