The petitioner is a Taiwan based company that provides direct technical and engineering support to its foreign U.S. based customers. The Director of USCIS denied Petitioner’s L-1B petition on behalf of the beneficiary and concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the Beneficiary possesses “specialized knowledge” as required under 8 C.F.R.§214.2(l)(1)(ii)(D). The Director noted that the Beneficiary’s knowledge was not any more advanced than other engineers of the foreign employer.
The ultimate question is whether the Petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary’s knowledge or expertise is “advanced or special” and that the beneficiary’s position requires such knowledge.
The Administrative Appeals Office sustained Petitioner’s appeal, finding that the totality of the evidence established that it is more likely than not that the beneficiary has advanced knowledge of the foreign employer’s processes and procedures. The AAO noted that, “[A]s both “special” and “advanced” are relative terms. Determining whether a given beneficiary’s knowledge is “Special” or “Advanced” inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary’s knowledge against that of others in the petitioning company and/or against others holding comparable positions in the industry.” In this matter, the AAO found that the beneficiary holds advanced knowledge of the foreign employer’s processes and procedures related to product and design of manufacturing and that this specialized knowledge will be critical to the Beneficiary’s technical support role in the U.S.