sustained L-1B Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18984593 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 6, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Nonimmigrant Worker 
The Petitioner, a specialized engineering consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "senior design engineer" 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 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 that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary's position abroad involved specialized knowledge, (2) 
the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the intended services in the United States, (3) the Beneficiary's 
position in the United States would involve specialized knowledge, and ( 4) the Beneficiary's 
placement at the worksite of an unaffiliated employer would not be labor for hire. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision did not give proper weight to the 
supporting evidence. 
Upon de nova review of the record, we conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence to 
overcome the Director's bases for denial and we will sustain the appeal. 
Under the statute, a beneficiary is considered to have specialized knowledge if he or she has a "special" 
knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets. Section 214( c )(2)(B) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner clarified how the Beneficiary gained his specialized knowledge. The 
Petitioner discussed his progressive experience in the nuclear reactor industry beginning in 1999 and 
continuing with the foreign entity intermittently until his full-time employment with the foreign entity 
in March 2018. The Petitioner included letters from the Beneficiary's initial mentor as well as his 
direct supervisor at the foreign entity. The letters described a specific subset of nuclear reactor 
technology involving I I reactors which is being explored as a safer 
alternative to fuel rod reactors. 1 The supporting evidence describes how the Beneficiary acquired 
distinct and uncommon knowledge relating to the specific type of fuel handling and storage systems 
used for this technology. His experience was gained working within the particular subset of nuclear 
technology and more particularly with the foreign entity's work in designing and developing the 
technology for application within the nuclear industry. Further, the Beneficiary contributed to a patent 
application for a specific valve used in the I I systems design. 
The Petitioner and its client are one of onl a few companies in the active process of developing, 
designing, and demonstratin the modular reactor. As the field is small, the Beneficiary's 
knowledge of the~-------~ system as it relates to this specific technology, more likely 
than not, is distinct and uncommon among engineers in the nuclear reactor field. The Petitioner 
indicates that it requires the Beneficiary's services in the United States to further develop thec=J 
I I system component based on its U.S. client requirements and specifications. 
The Petitioner acknowledges that its principal and another individual 2 within the foreign entity have 
familiarity with the U.S. client's particular! !modular reactor. However, the Petitioner 
sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary, based on his training, progressive experience, and 
unique work assignment, is one of the few individuals in the industry who possesses design-level 
knowledge of the I I system that are critical to its client's continued 
development and demonstration of its I I modular nuclear reactor. Upon review of the totality 
of the record, the Petitioner has established that more likely than not the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge. 
Given that the Beneficiary utilized his srcialized know ledge abroad in designing a I I I I system usingl _ technology, and that he will use this same knowledge of this 
technology in the United States, we conclude that both his position abroad and his proposed position 
in the United States involve specialized knowledge. Furthermore, given that the Beneficiary is an 
expert in this field with multiple years of experience, we also conclude that he is qualified to perform 
the duties of his proposed position. 
Lastly, the Petitioner has also demonstrated that the Beneficiary's work would not be labor for hire.3 
The Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be supervised and controlled by the Petitioner 
when assigned to its client's work location. It also credibly established that the Beneficiary will 
provide services for which the specialized knowledge specific to the Petitioner is necessary. As such, 
the Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary would utilize specialized knowledge specific to 
the Petitioner and its affiliated companies pursuant to his work for its client; as such it has established 
that he would not be employed as labor for hire. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
1 The Petitioner provided evidence showing that the U.S. Department of Energy has supported the development of this 
technology and continues to do so by awarding significant funds for the development of a small modular nuclear reactor 
in the United States. 
2 USCIS records show that an L- lB petition filed by the Petitioner on behalf of this individual was approved. 
3 See L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004, section 214( c )(2)(F) of the Act. 
2