sustained L-1B Case: Engineering And Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 25, 2024 In Re: 32555853 
Certification of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker) 
The Petitioner, a provider of engineering, construction, fabrication, and professional services for the 
heavy industrial and manufacturing sectors, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a senior pipe 
fitter under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, that he was employed abroad in a 
capacity that was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge, and that he will be 
employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. The Director further determined 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's proposed assignment to an unaffiliated 
employer's worksite would comply with the provisions of the L-1 Visa Reform Act. The Director's 
decision is now before us on certification pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.4(a). 
In accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.4(a)(2), the Director issued a Form I-290C, Notice of Certification, 
advising the Petitioner that the matter has been certified to our office. The Petitioner timely submitted 
a brief and supplemental evidence for consideration on certification, which has been incorporated into 
the record of proceeding. 1 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will reverse the Director's decision and approve the petition. 
I. LAW 
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 
1 We decline to grant the Petitioner's written request for oral argument. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b)(2). 
admission into the United States. Section lOl (a)(l 5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering their 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 them to perform the 
intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is the wholly owned subsidiary of the Beneficiary's foreign employer, a Philippines 
company that has been operating in the construction and infrastructure sector for over a century. In a 
supporting letter, the Petitioner explained that its parent company is "recognized globally as a pioneer 
in oil and gas infrastructure with leading credentials in modular construction" for several industries, 
with extensive experience in liquified natural gas (LNG) plants. The Petitioner, established in 2017, 
seeks to expand the organization's services in North America by providing engineering, fabrication, 
construction and professional services for capital projects in the heavy industrial and manufacturing 
sectors. 
The Petitioner's parent company has continuously employed the Beneficiary in the position of senior 
pipe fitter since August 2022. 2 In January 2024, the Petitioner filed this petition seeking to temporarily 
employ him in this position in the United States, where he will be assigned to provide services at the 
Texas location of its client, an unaffiliated employer, on a Fast LNG Platform being built and installed 
in the Gulf Coast of Mexico. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary, based on his years of craft 
experience as a pipe fitter, his company-specific training, and his experience working as a senior pipe 
fitter on similar projects with the foreign entity for over three years, possesses specialized knowledge 
of the company's proprietary Modular Construction methods, Quality, Health, Safety and 
Environment (QHSE) Management System, and Quality Control Manual, and that such knowledge is 
required to perform the proposed duties in the United States. 
III. ANALYSIS 
The issues before us are whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that: the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge; the offered position requires that specialized 
knowledge; and the Beneficiary has at least one continuous year of employment abroad in a position 
involving specialized knowledge within the three years preceding the filing of the petition.3 Because 
the petition indicates that the Beneficiary will be working primarily at the worksite of an unaffiliated 
employer, the Petitioner must also demonstrate that this offsite placement complies with the provisions 
ofthe 2004 L-1 Visa Reform Act. 4 
2 The foreign entity previously employed the Beneficiary in this position from May 2019 through October 2021, and from 
November 2021 through July 2022. 
3 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity. 
4 Under section 214(c)(2)(F) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(F), a prospective specialized knowledge employee who will 
be stationed primarily at the worksite of an unaffiliated employer is not eligible for L-lB classification if they (i) will be 
controlled and supervised principally by the unaffiliated employer; or (ii) their placement at the unaffiliated employer's 
worksite is essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire for the unaffiliated employer, rather than a placement in 
connection with the provision of a product or service for which specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning employer 
1s necessary. 
2 
Upon review of the record, including the Petitioner's additional submission on certification, we will 
reverse the Director's initial decision and approve the petition. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish 
the Beneficiary was employed in a 
position involving specialized knowledge for at least one year in the three years preceding the filing 
of the petition, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii)-(iv). The Director acknowledged the 
Petitioner's assertion that workers in the Beneficiary's occupation acquire specialized knowledge by 
accruing at least one year of employment with the foreign parent in a senior pipe fitter position and 
through completion of the foreign entity's senior pipe fitter certification program. However, they 
found that because the Beneficiary completed the senior pipe fitter program approximately seven 
months prior to the date the petition was filed, he could not have accrued one full year "performing 
duties based upon his completed specialized knowledge training." 5 
In its submission on certification, the Petitioner contends that the decision reflects a misunderstanding 
of the evidence related to the foreign parent's senior pipe fitter certification program and its purpose. 
It explains that for those employees who have already been serving in a senior role with the foreign 
parent for the requisite one year or longer, the senior pipe fitter certification program serves as a 
verification of their company-specific knowledge and skills, and validates their ability to apply that 
knowledge, perform crucial job functions, and represent the company on projects in the United States 
and other parts of the world. The Petitioner emphasizes that due to its relative recent entry to the U.S. 
market, it has determined that the best way for it to protect and grow its reputation is to ensure that 
they transfer only the most knowledgeable and skilled workers to the United States. The Petitioner 
also asserts that the Director conflated the requirements for transfer to the United States in a senior 
pipe fitter position and the requirements to hold that position with the foreign entity. The Petitioner 
notes that only highly experienced craft workers hired directly into the senior position in the 
Philippines, and who wish to be considered for international assignments, must complete the program. 
The Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that the date on the Beneficiary's "Certificate of 
Competency" does not represent the date on which he completed his acquisition of the claimed 
specialized knowledge. Therefore, the fact that the certificate was issued less than one year prior to 
the filing of the petition does not preclude a determination that he had at least one year of employment 
abroad in a position involving the claimed specialized knowledge. The topics covered in the certificate 
program, based on a comparison of the program description and the Beneficiary's foreign job duties, 
reflect that the program reinforced and tested knowledge and skills that he had already acquired and 
applied during his previous training and assignments as a senior pipe fitter on large-scale infrastructure 
projects with the foreign entity over the course of his employment since May 2019. Based on these 
facts, the Petitioner's explanation that the issued certificate merely validates that he is fully successful 
in performing the duties required of the senior pipe fitter position is persuasive. 
The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge. A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if they have: (1) a 
"special" knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an 
5 The Petitioner submitted a "Certificate of Competency" issued on June 30, 2023, indicating that the Beneficiary 
demonstrated the company's "highest level of Senior Pipe Fitter." 
3 
"advanced" level of knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 214( c )(2)(8) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.e. § l 184(c)(2)(B). 
"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 industry. "Advanced 
knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures. To establish a 
beneficiary has advanced knowledge, a petitioner may provide 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. See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual L.4(8)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual (providing guidance on applying the statutory and regulatory definitions of "specialized 
knowledge"). 
In the decision, the Director emphasized that the Beneficiary was able to begin employment with the 
Petitioner's parent at a "senior" level, which led to a determination that any company-specific 
knowledge required to perform the duties of a senior pipe fitter within the Petitioner's organization is 
not specialized knowledge, as claimed. They observed that, although the Beneficiary likely achieved 
competence in the use of the Petitioner's own technology, tools, processes and methodologies, it was 
unclear how his proficiency in these areas equates to specialized knowledge if he was able to perform 
the duties of the position immediately upon being hired. The Director concluded "[i]t appears that the 
beneficiary performs the same or similar duties as other workers in a similar position in the field and 
that the knowledge required to serve in the position is likely common within the industry." 
For this reason, the Director also concluded the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the U.S. position 
requires knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in the industry, and that his assignment to the 
worksite of the unaffiliated employer "is a placement in connection with the provision of a service for 
which specialized knowledge is necessary and is not essentially an arrangement to provide labor for 
hire for the unaffiliated employer" as required under section 214(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the Act. 
In its response to the notice of certification, the Petitioner asserts that the Director disregarded relevant 
evidence, did not conduct a totality of the circumstances review of the record, and failed to follow 
users policy guidance in evaluating whether the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. 
The Petitioner emphasizes that users should recognize it would be inappropriate to place a newly 
hired employee with years of progressive work experience in the pipe fitting craft in the same position 
as a new hire with little to no craft experience, as such workers "are not equal." The Petitioner explains 
that employees like the Beneficiary, who are hired at the senior level, have deep foundational 
knowledge of the craft that equips them to gain and utilize company-specific specialized knowledge 
at a higher level, emphasizing that such employees must complete onboarding training and start in a 
probationary status to ensure that they acquire proficiency with the organization's proprietary 
technologies, standards and methodologies. The Petitioner argues that "specialized knowledge should 
not lose its special nature just because it may not have been solely obtained during the course of 
employment with the petitioning organization," noting that the years of craft experience the 
4 
Beneficiary had accrued prior to being hired were critical to his ability to attain and utilize this 
specialized knowledge. 
We agree with 
the Petitioner that based on the circumstances described and documented in the record, 
the fact that the Beneficiary was hired for a senior pipe fitter position when he initially joined the 
parent company, does not, by itself, provide a sufficient basis for concluding that the position does not 
involve or require specialized knowledge. The Petitioner has provided a reasonable explanation for 
its parent company's practice of initially placing new employees at a level appropriate to their 
technical craft skills based on formal assessments of such skills, and then providing formal and job­
related training specific to the company's own technologies, processes and standards. 
The Petitioner further emphasizes that senior pipe fitters like the Beneficiary obtain proprietary 
knowledge that sets them apart from the average industry craftworker and ensures that they can be 
entrusted with supervising and mentoring less experienced craft workers and ensuring adherence to 
the company's industry-distinct processes and standards, on complex, large-scale offshore modular 
construction projects. Specifically, it claims its senior pipe fitters gain specialized knowledge of the 
company's proprietary Modular Construction technologies and methodologies, QHSE processes, and 
Quality Control standards that differentiates them from others in the industry and is more advanced in 
comparison to "regular" or lower-level pipe fitters within the company who are still learning the more 
fundamental elements of the craft and are not called on to mentor or monitor the work of others. The 
Petitioner stresses that the Director did not sufficiently address the evidence it submitted in support of 
these claims or explain why the Beneficiary's company-specific knowledge could not be considered 
"special" or "advanced." 
The petitioning organization's proprietary modular construction technology, processes and standards, 
and the training it provides in these areas, are well-documented in the record and accompanied by 
evidence that it is recognized as a pioneer and leader in modular construction in the infrastructure 
sector. 6 While the Petitioner acknowledges that the use of modular construction technologies and 
techniques are not unique to its company, it provided credible evidence that such techniques are not 
yet widely used across the industry, and therefore not commonly known among pipe fitters and other 
craft workers. Moreover, the record contains industry reports and expert opinion evidence confirming 
a nationwide shortage of trained pipe fitters and welders in the U.S. market as support for the 
Petitioner's assertion that "75-85% of domestic applicants do not pass client testing phases of the 
hiring process." 
The record also reflects that the Petitioner's organization has consistently received industry awards 
and recognition for its quality, health and safety practices and procedures, its safety record, its training 
capabilities and facilities, and its resulting ability to undertake complex, large-scale modular 
construction projects anywhere in the world. The Petitioner's U.S. client emphasizes that it awarded 
the contract for its LNG project to the Petitioner "specifically because of their employees' ability to 
utilize their special knowledge of modular fabrication methods" learned with the parent company, and 
their ability to ensure "the best possible results with respect to efficiency, safety, productivity and 
quality." The client further explains that the knowledge possessed by the Petitioner's senior pipe 
6 Although the Petitioner provided evidence that its modular construction technology is proprietary in support of its claim 
that the Beneficiary's knowledge is special or advanced, the L- IB classification does not require such a finding. 
5 
fitters and welders is not easily found elsewhere in the industry, and especially within the United 
States. 
Finally, while the Director emphasized that the Petitioner did not compare the Beneficiary's 
knowledge to that of other senior pipe fitters within the company, we note the Petitioner is not required 
to demonstrate that the knowledge possessed by the Beneficiary is narrowly held within the 
organization to establish that it is special or advanced. Based on the documented scope of the large­
scale modular fabrication projects in which the company engages, and the personnel structure of these 
projects, it has demonstrated its reasonable need for a significant number of senior pipe fitters 
possessing similar knowledge, as each will be responsible for monitoring and training a small team of 
less experienced personnel and ensuring that they perform work that adheres to the company's 
technical specifications, quality standards and safety procedures. The fact that other company 
employees have similar knowledge does not preclude approval of the petition if the evidence 
presented, taken as a whole, establishes eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Here, the Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge of 
company processes that cannot be easily transferred or taught to another person without significant 
economic cost or inconvenience and that is particularly beneficial to the petitioning organization's 
competitive position in the marketplace, given its undertaking of multiple large projects requiring 
employees who possess this expertise. See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at L.4(B)(2), 
(discussing factors to consider when determining whether a beneficiary's knowledge is specialized). 
Therefore, after reviewing the evidence in its totality, we conclude the Petitioner established that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge for at least one year 
in the three years preceding the filing of the petition and will be employed in a specialized knowledge 
capacity in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii)-(iv). The Petitioner also demonstrated that 
his placement at the unaffiliated employer's worksite is in connection with the provision of a service 
for which this specialized knowledge is necessary. See section 214( c )(2)(F)(ii) of the Act. 
Accordingly, we will approve the petition. 
ORDER: The petition is approved. 
6