remanded L-1B Case: Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8775103 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WLY 13, 2020 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, a designer and installer of proprietary roofing and facades, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a project superintendent in the United States under the L-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary's foreign employer was doing business as defined by the regulations . 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the foreign employer performs numerous multi-million dollar 
construction projects around the world and asserts it has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate 
the foreign employer is doing business. 
Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence on appeal to establish that the 
foreign employer is doing business as defined by the regulations; therefore, we will withdraw the 
Director's decision and remand it for the entry of a new decision. Notwithstanding our withdrawal of 
the Director's decision, we find that the record as presently constituted is not sufficient to demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. We note that as a threshold matter, if the 
Beneficiary does not possess specialized knowledge, then his position abroad and in the United States 
would not involve specialized knowledge as necessary to qualify him. 
The Petitioner indicates that it and the Beneficiary's foreign employer and its other affiliates 
worldwide are part of a corporate group specializing i ._ _____________ _, used to 
build "several hundred projects throughout the world ." The Petitioner noted that its group of 
companies is considered the "market leader" i~ I and that it "offers clients a complete design and 
construction service, from initial concept through to scheme design, production, installation and 
facilities management." The Petitioner indicated that the global company invented this construction 
technology over 25 years ago, that this technology has been adopted by leading architects and 
engineers around the world , and that they have completed numerous projects ranging from Olympic 
venues to corporate atriums . 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been employed by the foreign employer since 2005 as a 
construction/project manager, explaining he oversaw "major installation projects, including the 
design, management and installation projects for [the foreign employer], and managed high[- ]profile 
client relationships." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "gained comprehensive and thorough 
knowledge of the proprietary and highly confidential I I System, including both [its] 
installation and maintenance." The Petitioner indicated the Beneficiary would act in a similar role in 
the United States as a project superintendent. It emphasized that the Beneficiary "possesses in depth 
knowledge of the [company's] business processes, policies, practices and its proprietary! I 
products" and that he is a "key player" in establishing business for the company holding a "thorough 
understanding of the operating conditions and environment of [ the company] around the world." 
Under the statute, a beneficiary is considered 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, 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(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and type 
of evidence that 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 
gained such knowledge. 
Determining whether a beneficiary has "special knowledge" requires review of a given beneficiary's 
knowledge of how the petitioning organization manufactures, produces, or develops its products, 
services, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. 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 
a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to another is not considered 
special knowledge. 
Determinations concerning "advanced knowledge" require review of a beneficiary's knowledge of the 
petitioning organization's processes and procedures. 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 farther 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. Also, as with special knowledge, the petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that a 
2 
beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the particular industry and cannot be easily 
imparted from one person to another. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner has not clearly articulated whether the Beneficiary's knowledge 
qualifies as special or advanced, or both. Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently described the 
Beneficiary's knowledge. For instance, it vaguely stated that the Beneficiary held "in depth 
knowledge of the [company's] business processes, policies, [and] practices." However, the Petitioner 
did not detail or describe these processes, policies, and practices. The Petitioner also notably did not 
specifically articulate how long it took the Beneficiary to gain his knowledge or indicate how long it 
would take another one of his colleagues, or someone similarly placed in the industry, to obtain his 
level of knowledge. Again, 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. 
Further, the Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate how the Beneficiary gained his advanced knowledge 
when compared to his colleagues or how his knowledge was set apart from them. In tum, the Petitioner 
did not adequately explain how the Beneficiary acquired his claimed specialized knowledge when 
compared to similarly placed colleagues in the industry. Determining whether knowledge is 
"advanced" or "special" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge against that 
of others. The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing such a favorable comparison. However, the 
Petitioner provided no such comparisons to set the Beneficiary apart from his colleagues, both within 
the company and throughout the industry. The Petitioner only generically indicated that the 
knowledge held by the Beneficiary is proprietary; however, knowledge being proprietary does not 
alone establish that it is specialized, as companies commonly hold specific knowledge within their 
particular industries. 
For instance, the Petitioner indicated that the company invented itsl I construction technology 
approximately 25 years ago and that it completed hundreds of projects around the world. It also stated 
that it has over 300 employees around the world and maintains over 1500 installations utilizing its 
technology. The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart related to only one project the 
Beneficiary worked among many others. The chart from this onel projeT reflected numerous other 
employees who would likely have knowledge of the company's technology as well as its 
processes and practices, including a design project manager, a pTject janager senior to the 
Beneficiary, a contract manager, a logistics manager, steel manager, mechanical manager, 
erection manager, site engineer, amongst others. As noted, this chart was reflective of only one 
project, while the Petitioner provided a substantial list of the Beneficiary's prior projects and others 
completed by the company around the world. Therefore, without farther detail and information, it is 
reasonable to conclude that these other projects included several other colleagues working in roles 
requiring high levels of knowledge inl I Without detailed comparisons of the Beneficiary against 
his colleagues, it is not clear that his years of experience amount to special or advanced knowledge 
according to the regulatory definition. 
For the foregoing reasons, we remand this issue to the Director for analysis of the relevant factors 
above and for a determination as to whether the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge; and in 
tum, whether he is employed in a specialized knowledge capacity abroad and would be employed in 
3 
a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4