sustained L-1B Case: Automotive

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 2, 2024 In Re: 29139071 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker) 
The Petitioner, a designer and manufacturer of automotive components, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary in the United States as a data analyst. The company requests her classification under 
the L-lB nonimmigrant visa category as an intracompany transferee whose work would involve 
"specialized knowledge." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(L) . 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the specialized knowledge nature of the Beneficiary's foreign and 
proposed U.S. work. The Director also found insufficient evidence that the Beneficiary possesses the 
education, training, and employment experience for the offered job. On appeal, the Petitioner contends 
that the Director misapplied facts and law. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising appellate de novo review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that the company has established the specialized knowledge nature of the 
Beneficiary's current and offered jobs and her qualifications for the offered job. We will therefore 
sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
A petitioner seeking to employ an L-lB intracompany transferee must demonstrate that - for at least 
one continuous year in the three years before a beneficiary's initial U.S. admission in nonimmigrant 
status - the petitioner or its parent, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate employed the noncitizen abroad in a 
capacity that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge. Section 101(a)(15)(L) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(i), (iii), (iv). An L-lB petitioner must also establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States and that their 
education, training, and experience qualify them for the offered job. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii), (iv). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record shows that an affiliate of the Petitioner has employed the Beneficiary in Ireland as a data 
analyst since July 2021. The Petitioner filed its petition in June 2023, seeking to temporarily transfer 
her to its U.S. operations to work in the same position. 
The Petitioner stated that the offered U.S. job entails the same duties the Beneficiary now performs 
for the foreign employer. She would continue to provide systems expertise to the organization's global 
legal and compliance team. The Beneficiary would define the team's requirements regarding legal 
documentation and management, governance, and invoice processing. She would then incorporate 
these requirements into the Petitioner's customized databases and software systems by creating and 
defining database tool functions. The Beneficiary would also train the Petitioner's team members, 
and lead systems and tools practices to ensure their proper use and implementation. 
A. The Nature of the Foreign and U.S. Jobs 
The Petitioner contends that both the Beneficiary's foreign and offered jobs involve specialized 
knowledge. Because the jobs share the same duties, we will analyze their natures together. 
A beneficiary serves in a specialized knowledge capacity if they have "a special knowledge of the 
company product and its application in international markets" or "an advanced level of knowledge of 
processes and procedures of the company." Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(E) (defining the term "specialized knowledge" as including special knowledge of a 
petitioner's "product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and its 
application in international markets"). 
If claiming special knowledge of an organization's products or services and its application in 
international markets, a petitioner must demonstrate that a beneficiary's knowledge is distinct or 
uncommon compared to that of other similarly employed workers in the industry. 2 USCIS Policy 
Manual L.( 4)(B)(l ), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. In contrast, if claiming advanced knowledge of 
an organization's processes or procedures, a petitioner must establish that a beneficiary's knowledge 
is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and understanding compared to other 
workers in the organization's operations. Id. 1 
The following factors may indicate a beneficiary's possession of specialized knowledge: 
• They have been employed abroad in a capacity that has significantly enhanced their 
employer's productivity, competitiveness, image, or financial position; 
1 Neither the Act nor regulations define the tenns "special" or "advanced." USCTS therefore refers to their common 
dictionary definitions. The term special is defined in leading dictionaries as "surpassing the usual," "distinct among others 
of a kind," "distinguished by some unusual quality," "uncommon," or "noteworthy." See Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/special; Oxford English Dictionary, www.oed.com/dictionary/special_ adj#eid. 
The term advanced is defined in leading dictionaries as "greatly developed beyond an initial stage," or "ahead or far or 
further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill, etc." See www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advanced; 
www.oed.com/dictionary/advance _ v#eid. 
2 
• Their claimed specialized knowledge is normally gained only through prior experience with 
the petitioning organization; 
• They have knowledge of a product or process that cannot be easily transferred or taught to 
another without significant economic cost or inconvenience (because, for example, such 
knowledge may require substantial training, work experience, or education); or 
• They have knowledge of a process or product that, although not necessarily unique to the 
petitioning organization, either is sophisticated and complex, or of a highly technical nature. 
2 USCIS Policy Manual L.(4)(B)(2). 
The Beneficiary provides systems expertise to the Petitioner's global legal and compliance team. 
Thus, the record does not indicate her knowledge of the organization's automotive-related products or 
services or its application in international markets. Rather, the evidence shows that her work involves 
the organization's internal processes and procedures regarding its legal operations. The Petitioner 
must therefore demonstrate that, as compared to others in the organization, the Beneficiary's 
knowledge of the relevant legal processes and procedures is greatly developed or further along in 
progress, complexity, and understanding. 
The Director found that "[i]t appears that the Beneficiary performs the same or similar duties as other 
workers in a similar position in the field." The Director therefore concluded that "the evidence 
provided does not sufficiently establish how the knowledge possessed by the beneficiary abroad ... 
is not commonly found in the industry and more highly developed or complex." 
The Director incorrectly compared the Beneficiary's knowledge to those of others in the industry. As 
previously indicated, her claimed knowledge concerns the processes and procedures of the Petitioner's 
internal organization. Contrary to the Director's finding, others in the industry would not commonly 
have knowledge of the organization's internal processes and procedures. 2 USCIS Policy Manual 
L.(4)(B)(l) ("[B]ecause advanced knowledge concerns knowledge of a petitioning organization's 
processes and procedures that is not commonly found in the relevant industry, the petitioner may meet 
its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge of or expertise in the petitioning 
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.") Thus, 
the Director should have compared the Beneficiary's knowledge to that of other workers within the 
Petitioner's organization. Id. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that the Beneficiary has a more developed knowledge of the 
databases and systems supporting the global legal and compliance team than others in the organization. 
The relevant systems include: a customized platform used to manage legal matters; a system for 
outside attorneys to process invoices; databases used to manage conflicts of interest and internal 
investigations; and software to monitor compliance with privacy regulations and third-party privacy 
risks. The Petitioner states that, at the time of the Beneficiary's hiring, it had acquired the system to 
monitor privacy compliance and risks. But, until her hiring, no one had been assigned to manage or 
configure the system. The company states that it added the other systems after she joined the 
organization. All the systems supporting the legal team are commercially available, and vendors of 
some systems have developed applications for them. The Petitioner argues that, to customize the 
3 
systems to support the team's particular needs and to liaise with system vendors, the Beneficiary had 
to gain specialized knowledge of the organization's legal processes, data needs, compliance and 
investigation procedures, and data retention and privacy risk policies. 
The Petitioner states that, after the Beneficiary's hiring, she completed six months of training at the 
Irish affiliate to acquire the relevant specialized knowledge. The company submitted evidence 
showing that her training included certification in the use of the privacy information system and 
completion of a three-week course on "European Data Protection." The Petitioner states that her 
training also included: learning about the organization's legal processes and reporting requirements; 
defining its key performance indicators; understanding security access levels under its policies; 
identifying and resolving its data quality issues; and understanding data transfer and cross­
functionality between its systems and external ones. 
The company submitted a chart comparing the Beneficiary's skills to those of other legal team 
workers, including five in Ireland and four in the United States. The chart identifies the Beneficiary 
as the only worker with skills needed to manage the relevant systems - including knowledge of the 
business needs and requirements of all the organization's specialty legal teams, its relevant systems 
and their architectures - and experience with database management and design for legal systems. The 
Petitioner stated that the company has other information technology employees but that none of them 
have experience with the systems supporting the global legal team. A company official described the 
Beneficiary as "the only one who can manage and configure the legal management systems, 
troubleshoot and handle unforeseen issues or problems, and transform data into meaningful reports." 
A preponderance of the evidence shows that, as compared to other workers in the Petitioner's 
organization, the Beneficiary's knowledge of the relevant internal legal processes and procedures and 
their interaction with supporting information systems is advanced and that another in the organization 
could not gain the knowledge without completing months of training. See Fogo de Chao (Holdings) 
Inc. v. DHS, 769 F.3d 1127, 1142 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (holding that, when considering whether a job 
involves specialized knowledge, USCIS should consider any economic burdens that training another 
worker would entail); see also 2 USCIS Policy Manual L.(4)(B)(2) (listing knowledge that cannot be 
transferred to another without substantial training as a factor indicating specialized knowledge). The 
Petitioner therefore has demonstrated that the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed U.S. jobs involve 
specialized knowledge. We will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
B. The Beneficiary's Qualifications for the Offered Job 
Besides showing that an offered job involves specialized knowledge, an L-1 pet1t10ner must 
demonstrate that a beneficiary's "prior education, training, and employment qualifies [them] to 
perform the intended services in the United States." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). According to USCIS 
policy, this demonstration of the amount and type of training, work experience, and education required 
to develop a beneficiary's knowledge is "[o]ne of several factors that may be considered m 
determining whether the knowledge is specialized." 2 USCIS Policy Manual L.(4)(B)(2), n.4. 
The Petitioner documented the Beneficiary's receipt of a bachelor of science degree in management 
information systems (MIS) from an Irish university in 2020 and her employment abroad by the 
Petitioner's affiliate in the offered job since July 2021. An independent, professional evaluation of 
her foreign educational credentials concludes that her Irish degree equates to a U.S. bachelor of science 
4 
degree in MIS. The company also submitted copies of two 2021 certificates she earned in business 
data analytics and documentation of training she received at the Petitioner's affiliate after her hiring. 
The Director found that the Petitioner's evidence does not show that the Beneficiary has "knowledge 
or experience in the field of database management/data analytics that is significantly different from 
that possessed by similarly employed workers in the same industry." Asserting that data analysts 
commonly require bachelor's degrees, the Director found that the Beneficiary's education does not 
reflect "special" or "advanced" knowledge. Also, the Director stated that the company did not 
demonstrate that "the general knowledge of and familiarity with [the] organization's tools, processes, 
and systems equates to specialized knowledge." 
The Director's analysis of the Beneficiary's qualifications is misguided. First, as previously discussed, 
because her current and offered jobs involve the Petitioner's internal processes and procedures rather 
than its products and services in international markets, the Director should have compared her 
education, training, and experience to those of others in the company's organization, not to those of 
others in the industry. See 2 USCIS Policy Manual L.(4)(B)(l) ("[B]ecause advanced knowledge 
concerns knowledge of a petitioning organization's processes and procedures that is not commonly 
found in the relevant industry, the petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary 
has knowledge of or expertise in the petitioning 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.") Also as previously discussed, the Petitioner sufficiently demonstrated 
that the Beneficiary is the only worker in the company's organization with the: skills to manage the 
relevant computer and database systems; knowledge of the business needs and requirements of the 
organization's legal teams; and experience managing and designing databases for legal purposes. 
Further, contrary to the Director's finding, the Petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary 
has more than a "general knowledge of and familiarity with [the] organization's tools, processes, and 
systems." The record shows that she received training, certifications, and experience on the relevant 
computer and database systems and studied the legal team's processes and procedures, including 
completing a three-week course on compliance with European privacy laws. The Petitioner has also 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary's knowledge of the team's processes and procedures and their 
relationships to information systems is farther along in progress, complexity, and understanding than 
that generally found within the company's organization. Thus, the Petitioner has established that the 
Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of its processes and procedures. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Contrary to the Director's finding, the Petitioner has established 
the specialized knowledge nature of 
the Beneficiary's foreign and offered jobs. The company also demonstrated her qualifications for the 
offered job. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
5