sustained L-1B Case: Welding Equipment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-N-A-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 12,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company that sells and supports specialized welding equipment, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as its technical manager under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, that he was employed 
abroad in a capacity that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge for at least 
one year, or that he would be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, clarifies certain issues raised by the Director, 
and asserts that it has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary is eligible 
for L-1 B classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 B 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)(15)(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. !d. 
A beneficiary is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to 
a company if the beneficiary has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in 
international markets or has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the 
company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). 
Matter ofC-N-A-, Inc. 
Specialized knowledge is also defined as 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). 
An individual L-1 B classification petition must be accompanied by evidence that: (1) the petitioner 
and the foreign employer of the beneficiary are qualifying organizations; (2) the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a position that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge 
for at least one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition; (3) the 
beneficiary is coming to work in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer; and ( 4) the beneficiary" s prior 
education, training and employment qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the United 
States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. DISCUSSION 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the 
United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
To establish that a beneficiary has special knowledge, 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 company or the particular industry. To 
establish that a beneficiary has advanced knowledge, a petitioner must submit 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. 
The Petitioner's foreign parent company designs and manufactures specialized welding machines for 
clients in the wire manufacturing and related industries. The record establishes that the group has 
been selling its products in North America for 20 years, with over 100 customers in the United 
States, Canada, and Mexico. The Petitioner was established in 2015 to perform technical support 
and spare part sales that had previously been performed under a service contract. 1 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has both specialized knowledge of its proprietary 
equipment and advanced knowledge of the processes and procedures for the installation, support, 
and commissioning of that equipment which is not commonly found in the industry or within the 
Petitioner's group of companies. 
1 
The Director found that the knowledge required to install, commission, and support the parent entity's products is not 
special knowledge because the parent company had been relying on a third-party to provide support services to its U.S. 
customers. The evidence submitted on appeal establishes that these support services were previously performed by a 
related U.S. company whose engineers and mechanics had access to company-specific training on the equipment. The 
relationship between the companies ended due to a transfer in ownership, which prompted the establishment of the 
petitioning company in 2015. 
2 
Matter ofC-N-A-, Inc. 
The Petitioner explained that no U.S. company manufactures the same type of specialized welding 
equipment, noting that most of its parent company's competitors are located in Europe. The record 
supports the Petitioner's claims that the knowledge required to support its parent company's 
equipment is not commonly found in the United States. On appeal, the Petitioner submits letters 
from several of its clients, who confirm that they must rely on the foreign entity's engineers and 
technicians to handle all but the most routine maintenance tasks for machines manufactured by the 
Petitioner's parent company, and to provide training to its staff. The Petitioner also provides 
evidence that the foreign entity has been dispatching its engineers and technicians to provide support 
services to U.S. clients on a short-term basis using temporary B-1 visas.2 The clients uniformly 
express support for a more permanent presence of U .S.-based technical support staff to avoid lengthy 
and costly downtimes in their manufacturing operations. 
The Petitioner has also made detailed, consistent, and credible claims regarding the Beneficiary's 
special and advanced knowledge. We find that the totality of the record, including new evidence 
submitted on appeal, substantiates the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary is deemed an expert 
with respect to the commissioning and support of its proprietary equipment gained through his more 
than seven years of progressive experience with the Petitioner's parent where he currently serves as 
commissioning technical manager. The Petitioner explained that one of the foreign entities less­
experienced engineers would not have the advanced knowledge needed to lead the North American 
technical services operation. The record establishes that the offered position requires the 
Beneficiary's advanced knowledge of the foreign entity's products (including older model machines) 
and their commissioning, servicing and maintenance processes and procedures, as well as experience 
in the training and supervision of other technicians. 
For the reasons discussed, the record of proceeding now contains sufficient evidence to overcome 
the basis for the Director's decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, and that his 
employment both abroad and in the United States requires specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter (~fC-N-A- Inc., 10# 698351 (AAO Dec. 12, 2017) 
2 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(b )(4 )(i)(F) allows installers, repair and maintenance personnel, and supervisors 
possessing specialized knowledge to perform services or training pursuant to a warranty or other service contract 
incidental to the sale of commercial or industrial equipment or machinery purchased from an enterprise located outside 
the United States. 
3