dismissed L-1B Case: Video Security

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21035303 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 02, 2022 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, a provider of video security cameras and Cloud-based surveillance solutions, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a Solutions Engineer under the L-1B nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 10l(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) . The L-1B 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, that he was 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. 
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 
Christo 's Inc., 26 l&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-1B 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)(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 
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). 
Under the statute, a beneficiary is considered to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: (I) 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. § l 184(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 special 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The record reflects that the Petitioner was established in 2016 and had approximately 700 employees 
and three offices in the United States at the time of filing. The company provides enterprise customers 
with video security solutions that combine "cutting-edge camera technology with intelligent, web­
based software." The Petitioner emphasizes that, "[u]nlike existing systems, [the company's] 
technology eliminates outdated equipment such as network video recorders and offers the protection 
of full encryption with no special configuration required." It further notes that its Cloud-based security 
cameras improve security, minimize bandwidth consumption, and offer reduced costs. The Petitioner 
states that it serves over 3000 enterprise organizations. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that the Beneficiary has been employed by its United Kingdom 
subsidiary in the position of Solutions Engineer since December 2019. It now seeks to employ him 
as a Solutions Engineer in its U.S. headquarters. The Petitioner indicates that the U.S. role will involve 
recommending product adjustments based on the needs of customers in international markets; 
providing in-house training to other U.S.-based solutions engineers; providing technical guidance, 
troubleshooting and support for U.S.-based customers with international operations; and working with 
product and sales teams to improve product performance and competitiveness. 
The Beneficiary received a bachelor of science degree in Network Management and Design in 2018. 
The Petitioner states that his work experience includes one year as a network developer intern with 
I I U.K. operations, where he completed a I I Certified Network Professional I I 
certification, and approximately 15 months of post-graduate experience as a field engineer with 
I lwhere he completed a Microsoft Azure certification. The Petitioner indicates that the 
Beneficiary also has a I I Security certification and a certification from Amazon Web 
Services. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge, that he has been employed abroad in position involving specialized knowledge, 1 
and that he will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
1 The Petitioner did not claim, in the alternative, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). 
2 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of the company's products, technologies and methodologies is significantly 
different from the knowledge possessed by similarly employed workers in the same industry, or that 
such knowledge equates to specialized knowledge. In this regard, the Director acknowledged the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary had received extensive internal training but concluded that the 
record did not support a determination that his company-specific knowledge could not be readily 
taught or transferred to a worker with a similar educational and professional background. Further, the 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not adequately compare the Beneficiary's knowledge with 
that possessed by other solutions engineers employed within the organization or within the industry in 
support of its claim that he possesses special or advanced knowledge. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not fully consider the supporting statements or 
other evidence submitted with the petition or properly apply the relevant law, regulations, and USCIS 
policy relating to specialized knowledge. The Petitioner emphasizes the complex nature of its 
proprietary products and solutions and the highly competitive nature of its industry in support of its 
contention that it would be time- and cost-prohibitive to hire and train a solutions engineer from 
outside the company to perform the proposed duties in the United States. 
A. Evaluating Specialized Knowledge 
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 he has been employed abroad in a position 
involving specialized knowledge and would be employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the pet1t10ning 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. With respect to "advanced knowledge," 
a petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that a given 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. Knowledge that is commonly held throughout a 
petitioner's industry or that can be readily imparted from one person to another is not considered 
special or advanced knowledge. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and type 
of evidence which establishes whether 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 an employee is able to gain 
specialized knowledge within the organization and explain how and when the individual beneficiary 
3 
gained such knowledge. Here, for the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. 
B. Special or Advanced Knowledge 
Special knowledge concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its 
application in international markets. As noted, 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. 
Here, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary possesses special knowledge of the company's 
"proprietary products in healthcare, hospitality and manufacturing verticals, limitations on core 
features in the European market, as well as [its] processes and procedures for delivering, implementing 
and integrating [the company's] enterprise customer accounts." 
With respect to its proprietary products, the Petitioner emphasizes its position as an industry leader in 
the global video surveillance market, placing it "at the forefront of the competitive race to develop the 
best and most innovative products." While the Petitioner has explained how its camera and Cloud­
based solutions improve upon older, traditional video surveillance solutions, it does not further explain 
how or to what extent the Petitioner's products and solutions are distinct from those offered by its 
competitors in this sector. Rather, it generally states that it has "processes and procedures" for 
implementation of its solutions that are "unique" and "not easily replicable or transferable between 
competing companies in the industry." Therefore, it claims that the knowledge required to perform 
the duties of a solutions engineer within its group of companies is "special knowledge" that is truly 
distinct from what is held by other similarly employed workers who are not familiar with the 
Petitioner's proprietary products and video surveillance solutions and its methods for implementing 
them. 
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 to determine whether the knowledge qualifies as "special 
knowledge." 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation or evidence to support its claim that the 
proprietary knowledge required to perform the duties of a solutions engineer can only be gained 
through extensive internal training. In its initial letter in support of the petition, the Petitioner stated 
that the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge was gained through his employment with its U.K. 
subsidiary, noting that he "participated in extensive training of the [company's] product stack, gaining 
detailed and internal workings knowledge, leading to his certification as a I I Certified 
Engineer." The Petitioner indicated that based on this certification, the Beneficiary "has advanced 
knowledge of our internal processes and procedures for developing the I product stack." A 
4 
letter from the U.K. subsidiary's director of sales further states that the company's technical training 
program "consists of both theoretical and practical training and covers skills such as Computer 
Networking, Electrical Engineering, Security infrastructure, Cloud Technologies and gaining hands-
on field experience and training on the entirel I Technology Stack." 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner did not further describe or document the nature of the training that 
leads to certification as al !Certified Engineer, indicate the length of such training or provide 
evidence that the Beneficiary completed it. In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the 
Petitioner that its initial evidence did not explain how the Beneficiary acquired his claimed specialized 
knowledge or document the specific trainings he completed. The Director listed evidence the 
Petitioner could provide to corroborate the Beneficiary's "extensive training," such as copies of his 
training or personnel records; a letter stating the minimum time required to obtain the claimed 
specialized knowledge (including training and post-training experience); additional details regarding 
the training program and any pre-requisites for the training; and curricula and training manuals for 
internal training courses. 
In response to the RFE, both the Petitioner and the foreign entity indicated that the Beneficiary 
completed approximately nine months of "advanced" internal trainings that included the I 
Certified Engineer program. In addition, it included training slides for this program. The first slide, 
which includes an agenda, states: 
This training covers all I I products, from installation to operation. All 
components plus a final 50 question exam must be completed to achieve the 
certification. The morning will cover Cameras and Sensors, and after a lunch break, 
we will cover the full access control installation. There will be a hands-on lab after 
each section. 
The Petitioner also submitted training slides for the I I Access Control "Partner Training 
Program." The agenda for this training indicates that it covers three chapters with each session lasting 
approximately one hour, followed by an exam. Based on the documentation provided, it is evident 
that both thel !Certified Engineer training and the Access Control training are designed as one­
day programs, despite covering a significant amount of material. 
Although requested by the Director, the Petitioner did not provide evidence demonstrating that the 
Beneficiary completed the training or identify who within the company is required to complete the 
training. In addition, the Petitioner did not indicate how long it would take for someone with a similar 
educational background, professional experience, and relevant third-party industry certifications to be 
trained as a solutions engineer. 
Notably, the supporting evidence submitted in response to the RFE did not corroborate the Petitioner's 
and foreign entity's claim that the Beneficiary completed nine months of advanced internal training 
during his tenure with its U.K. subsidiary. Rather, the limited supporting evidence suggests that the 
company's internal !Certified Engineer" course, which is claimed to result in "advanced 
knowledge" of the company's products and processes, is designed to be completed in one day. If the 
Beneficiary completed additional training beyond attending several one-day courses, such training has 
not been adequately described or documented in the record. 
5 
As such, the Petitioner did not support its claim that an understanding of its proprietary products and 
solutions equates to specialized knowledge that can normally only be gained through a significant 
period of training within the organization. Rather, the evidence indicates that the knowledge could be 
readily transferred to an employee with the appropriate undergraduate degree, third-party industry 
certifications, and relevant professional experience in networking, security, and Cloud-based 
solutions. 
We do not question that the Beneficiary is well-qualified to perform the intended duties in the United 
States based on his experience with the foreign subsidiary or that the Beneficiary, as of the date of 
filing, was the most experienced solutions engineer employed by the Petitioner's subsidiary, which 
was established only two years prior to the filing of the petition. 2 However, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that its solutions engineers are required to complete extensive internal training in order 
to provide the services the position demands or that the position otherwise requires special knowledge 
of the company's products or processes for delivering solutions to customers. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, we conclude that there are unresolved ambiguities in the record 
regarding the nature, scope and length of training provided to the organization's solutions engineers. 
Further, the record lacks information and documentation regarding the specific training completed by 
the Beneficiary and does not corroborate the Petitioner's claim that he completed nine months of 
trammg. 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 distinct 
from what is commonly held in the industry and knowledge that could not be readily 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 solutions 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. 
We have also considered the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary possesses special or advanced 
knowledge related to the application of the company's products in international markets that is not 
possessed by other solutions engineers within the organization. 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 or expertise that is greatly developed or further 
along in progress, complexity and understanding in comparison to other workers within the 
organization. 
An organizational chart for the Petitioner's global "Solutions Engineering" department supports its 
claim that most of the organization's solutions engineers are based in the United States, with only four 
employed within the group's international operations. To distinguish the Beneficiary's knowledge, 
the Petitioner has consistently claimed that European regulations governing the use of video 
2 While the Beneficiary is one of only three solutions engineers employed in the United Kingdom, the record reflects that 
the Petitioner had approximately 35 to 40 solutions engineers in its U.S. sales organization at the end of 2021. 
6 
surveillance are different from comparable U.S. regulations and have an impact on how the company 
designs and markets solutions for international customers. In its initial letter in support of the petition, 
the Petitioner described the Beneficiary's knowledge related to international markets as follows: 
[The Beneficiary's] specialized knowledge enables him to identify pitfalls including 
core feature set limitations in the European market surrounding facial analytics and 
General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) reducing accessibility of certain product 
features. He has specialized knowledge in identifying infrastructure and data residency 
location challenges with global clients in European markets and integration with core 
services operating out of the United States. He also gained specialized knowledge 
pertaining to cost hurdles specific to international market competitors, and our ability 
to develop a "go to" market strategy with products tailored to these spaces. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner added that this "advanced knowledge of international 
markets in the context of GDPR" along with his "advanced internal trainings on product 
stack" would provide the U.S. company with "an unprecedented level of business and technical 
knowledge and therefore success." The Petitioner emphasized that the Beneficiary had been involved 
in the initial procurement of most of the company's clients in the EMEA region and therefore can 
provide "visibility into the unique challenges of these organizations." It further noted that he has "a 
deep understanding of needed product adjustments to better penetrate international markets" that is 
not possessed by the U.S.-based solutions engineers. 
The Petitioner consistently asserts that the Beneficiary has acquired an advanced body of knowledge 
related to the needs of its international customers that is not possessed by its U.S. solutions engineers. 
However, it does not adequately explain what this knowledge entails, indicate that it could not be 
readily transferred, or compare it to the knowledge held by other staff within the organization ( either 
in the U.S. or abroad) who also work with international customers. The Petitioner has not identified 
the differences between the U.S. and international markets with specificity or indicate what types of 
"product adjustments" are needed to market its products in other regions beyond "reducing 
accessibility of certain features" in European markets with "stricter regulations surrounding facial 
analytics." It does not claim, for example, that either the U.S. entity or foreign subsidiary provide 
training on country-specific regulations or market requirements or otherwise explain how this type of 
knowledge can be gained within the organization and thus has not supported its claim that it equates 
to special or advanced knowledge. 
Further, the fact that the Beneficiary, with 21 months of company experience, has the longest tenure 
among the three U.K.-based solutions engineers is not sufficient to demonstrate that he has advanced 
knowledge in comparison to other employees within the international organization. The record does 
not establish, for example, that knowledge of relevant international regulations and market 
requirements is limited to persons who hold the position of solutions engineer within the U.K. 
operations. The organizational chart provided for the U.K. entity indicates that most of its employees, 
like the Beneficiary, are in the sales division and would more likely than not be familiar with the needs 
of clients and potential clients in their assigned international markets. We grant that employees 
working overseas likely possess deeper knowledge of international markets that is not widely held by 
U.S.-based staff who work primarily with domestic customers. It is also reasonable to determine that 
the U.S. staff would possess similar knowledge relative to U.S. regulations governing video 
7 
surveillance and relevant information regarding U.S. customers and market sectors that is not 
possessed by employees within its international operations. However, there is insufficient evidence to 
establish how this market-specific knowledge qualifies as special or advanced knowledge. Further, 
the record reflects that the Petitioner already markets its products overseas and therefore reasonably 
has employees who are at least familiar with the needs of the international markets the company 
targets. The Petitioner did not provide the information needed to make a comparison between the 
Beneficiary's knowledge and that possessed by others within the organization and therefore did not 
establish that he possesses advanced knowledge that sets him apart from others. 
We now tum to the Petitioner's remaining claims on appeal. First, the Petitioner asserts that the facts 
of this case are similar to those in a non-precedent decision in which we sustained the appeal of a 
petitioner that had filed an L-lB classification on behalf of one of its engineers. This decision was not 
published as a precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the 
individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings and 
the issues considered. In that case, the record contained evidence that the beneficiary had been 
involved in the initial design and development of the architecture surrounding the company's 
proprietary, Cloud-based platform. The facts of this case can therefore be distinguished from those in 
the cited unpublished decision, as the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge derives from his experience in the development of proprietary products. Rather, the 
Petitioner claims he developed his product knowledge through nine months of internal training, a claim 
that has not been supported in the record. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a 
specialized knowledge employee consistent with USCIS policy guidance relating to L-lB 
petitions. 3 However, as 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 performing a role that requires complex technical knowledge and that is beneficial 
to the Petitioner's productivity and competitiveness in the marketplace, these characteristics alone are 
not probative of his specialized knowledge. As noted in the USCIS Policy Manual, the 
"characteristics" listed by the Petitioner are only "factors that officers may consider when determining 
whether a beneficiary's knowledge is specialized." 4 Ultimately, it is the weight and type of evidence 
that establishes whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that Beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge. It has not shown that such knowledge is sufficiently distinct or uncommon or that it could 
not be readily transferred to another industry professional with the requisite functional and 
technological background, nor has it established that his knowledge is advanced when compared to 
that possessed by others within the organization. The Petitioner's claim that it would require an 
extensive period of training to acquire the claimed specialized knowledge needed for the U.S. position 
is simply not supported by the record. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
3 See 2 USCIS Policy Manual L.4(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-l-chapter-4 (providing 
guidance on factors that may be relevant to a specialized knowledge determination) 
4 Id. 
8 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9