u.s. citizenship non-precedent decision of the o ' …...the petitioner, an engineering and...

o U.S. Citizenship "' and Immigration

Services

MATTER OF J-E-G- INC.

APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: OCT. 28, 2016

PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER I

The Petitioner, an engineering and industrial services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "structural engineer VI" 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)(15)(L). The L-IB 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, Vermont Service Center, qenied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary had at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Further, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been employed abroad and will be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity.

The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge of the company's proprietary workshare programs and contends that the Director applied an improper evidentiary standard by not accepting the company's support letters as documentary evidence of the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge and one year of foreign employment.

Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, 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 managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. !d.

Matter of J-E-G- Inc.

If the beneficiary will be serving the United States employer in a managerial or executive capacity, a qualified beneficiary may be classified as an L-1 A nonimmigrant alien. If a qualified beneficiary will be rendering services in a capacity that involves "specialized knowledge," the beneficiary may be classified as an L-1 B nonimmigrant alien. !d.

Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the statutory definition of specialized knowledge:

,for purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets or has an advanced level ofknowledge of processes and procedures ofthe company.

Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge as: ~

[S]pecial 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.

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by:

(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (1)(1 )(ii)( G) of this section.

(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed.

(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition.

(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior education, training and employment qualifies him/her to perform the intended services in the United States; however the work in the United States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad.

2

(b)(6)


II. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE

The first issue tci 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.

A. Evidence of Record

The Petitioner states that it is engaged in "all aspects of engineering and commercial/industrial construction services to clients worldwide." The Form I-129 indicates that the Petitioner and its affiliates earned over $11 billion in revenue during the previous fiscal year and that the Petitioner's group employs over 70,000 individuals globally.

The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would be assigned to the company's office in the United States as a "Structural Engineer VI" to perform the following duties:

• Perform calculations and evaluate the design of equipment, structures, foundations and systems for industrial and applications;

• Ensure all project requirements are met; • Provide technical direction to engineers and designers and develop advanced

engineering concepts; • Perform calculations for structures and foundations; • Review and mark up drawings for structures and foundations to be consistent

with the calculations; • Attend model reviews to validate designs; • Check calculations and drawings for structures and foundations for work

performed in the India work share office; • Make site visits to determine interferences with new installations; and • Travel to the India work share offices to ensure the work being performed is

in accordance with [company] project scope, practices, standards, and quality requirements.

The Petitioner stated the Beneficiary's job duties would require the following "specialized knowledge and skill":

• Engineering design workflow and common deliverables in the Industry;

• LFM/laser scan integration into Frameworks, Smart Plant Review, Staad, Staad Foundation, Descon Win, Mat 3D, spCol, ACI, ASCE, AISC and IBC;

• Smart Plant 3D modeling software; • Knowledge of India culture and able to speak and understand India[n]

language; • P&IDs, for electrical and piping engineering;

3

(b)(6)


\ .

• Standard Operating Procedures; • Proprietary Systems; • and •

The Petitioner further described the Beneficiary's experience as follows:

[The Beneficiary] has developed knowledge of the processes and technical details and designs for this type of steel structure & connection details. Since structural design is plant specific and varies with site to site, this knowledge and experiences. are available only to [company] employees who have designed similar projects for this client usi~g [the company's] proprietary software such as and which can only be acquired by working at [the company]. The understanding of the above along with inner workings of our U.S. office will allow him to cope with civil design and engineering issues and assist in resolving them in both offices. Hiring and training a new employee in [the company's] specific technology will not produce the needed experience with the client, making [the Beneficiary] a rare and valued member of [the company] and well suited for the proposed work assignment.

The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary has "very successfully coordinated several major projects with the US office," noting that he "understands the unique specifics of the types of projects and office requirements [ ... ] to ensure that both the work share and the home offices will

/' successfully complete their projects." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary's work on the assigned project would be divided between offices in India and the United States and that he would use his knowledge of the Indian office in to "communicate and integrate methods" used in the United States, ensuring that the final product produced by each team is identical by utilizing the

process."

The Petitioner submitted a letter from the director of its "performance head unit" who explained that the Beneficiary had developed knowledge of processes and technical details related to "steel structure and connection details" since beginning his employment there in April 2008. The director reiterated that the Beneficiary had gained knowledge and experience only available to company employees due to the site-specific nature of structural design and its proprietary processes and practices, including

and

The foreign entity stated that the Beneficiary had been employed in the position of chief engineer, responsible for "implementing applicable Standard Operating Procedures (SOP'S) within the group as per Practices and Standards Procedure," exercising "overall control on designs, drawings, PDS modeling activities," designing modular structures, equipment, cooling tower, and tank foundations, and other ancillary plant and non-plant structures and foundations, amongst other duties. The foreign entity indicated that the Beneficiary had previously worked as a principal design

4

(b)(6)


engineer from January 2013 to December 2014, as a senior design engineer from January 2010 to December 2012, and as a design engineer from April 2008 to December 2009. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary holds bachelor's and master's degrees in civil engineering from an Indian institution.

The Petitioner submitted .an organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary is supervised by a project manager, a civil/structural lead engineer, and a "discipline manager-civil/structure" and that he oversees "sub/area lead engineers," ·who in tum direct "design engineers" and "supervisor/designer/draftman(s)~" The Petitioner also provided evidence of the Beneficiary's educational credentials.

The Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) noting that the Petitioner did not submit information regarding the proprietary tools in which the Beneficiary was stated to have specialized knowledge nor did it provide evidence of training he underwent to obtain his level of knowledge. The Director asked for a more detailed organizational chart as well as a letter from the foreign entity better describing the Beneficiary knowledge, including the minimum time required to gain his knowledge, how the Beneficiary's knowledge compares to other civil engineers in the company and the field, documentation of the Beneficiary's training or experience, and contracts or statements of · work relevant to the Beneficiary's work.

In response, the Petitioner submitted a letter from a human resources representative stating that the company had been retained by to build a new production facility in the United States and that the Beneficiary would be responsible for "Civil Structural aspects of the project," including "upgrades to existing facilities and brand new facilities using many different . design concepts including modular design." The Petitioner indicated that the project would last four years, that it was valued at $1.3 billion, and that it would "engage 600 ofthe company's employees." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary would be the lead civil structural engineer "responsible for . Workshare coordination," and that he would "manage approximately 25 engineers in India," acting as an intermediary between them and design teams in the United States. The Petitioner stated that "there are very few employees within [the company] - which employ[s] thousands of engineers worldwide - who are qualified to fill this specific need in the United States" and that the duties of the position cannot be performed by any structural engineer due to the unique nature of the project within the overall industry.

The Petitioner indicated that that it is one of few companies in the world with the capability to execute "a project of this size, scope, and complexity." The Petitioner explained that it "uses proprietary project management strategies for the overall execution of projects of this nature (including Workshare arrangements)," making its operations unique amongst its very few competitors. The Petitioner stated that it employs engineers in various disciplines and that each structural engineering specialty requires unique know.ledge. The Petitioner further explained as follows:

5

(b)(6)

I ,


I

Within one discipline - Civil Structural Engineering, for example - [company] engineers use proprietary tools and software, and apply proprietary methodologies. Each Civil Structural engineer, depending on length of employment and on-the job- experience, will have different levels of expertise with these proprietary tools. And, each Civil . Structural engineer will have different levels of expertise on specific types of projects. The expertise required to build a facility, for example. And, the skill and experience required to act as a Civil Structural engineer in a Workshare environment are unique and advanced within [the company].

Based on this explanation, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary's knowledge is "distinct and uncommon in comparison to that generally found in the particular industry."

In addition, the Petitioner explained that there will be three civil structural design teams assigned to the Beneficiary's project in the United States, including teams responsible for logistics, utilities, and raw materials, each headed by a "Lead Civil Structural Engineer." The Petitioner identified these lead engineers as having between 15 and 40 years of engineering experience and stated that each team would include 8 to 10 engineers.

The Petitioner reiterated that the Beneficiary would oversee 25 engineers in India and act as an intermediary between his subordinates and the three structural engineering teams in the United States. The Petitioner indicated that another U.S.-based civil st~ctural engineer could not perform the duties of the Beneficiary's position since he is "asked to lead a team that is physically located in India, who speak Hindi as their primary language." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary's position requires "a completely different management skill set," including handling a different culture and "navigating issues relating to communication of complex engineering concepts." The Petitioner s,tated that the Beneficiary ·will apply "unique knowledge and experience" of the company's workshare projects, as well as knowledge of Indian and U.S. "engineering cultures," to motivate and supervise the work of the team in India. The Petitioner noted that amongst the lead engineers on the project, only one has "limited" experience with workshare programs, while the two other U.S. based lead engineers have no such experience. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's knowledge of workshare arrangements is "distinct and uncommon in comparison to that generally found in the particular industry."

Further, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's engineering project is unique because it is a facility. It explained that the project involves "many different types of

structural design elements," noting that these vary according to the facility. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will "utilize proprietary [company] tools and strategies" as these apply "to different structures in a facility." The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary's knowledge "of Workshare Arrangements and Civil Engineering techniques and strategies is not commonly found in the industry" and that it is "g~eatly developed or further along in progress, complexity and understanding than that generally found within the employer."

6

(b)(6)


The Petitioner provided further background on the Beneficiary's training and experience indicating , that he has substantial formal and on the job training in a number of the company's proprietary tools. For instance, the Petitioner submitted a table reflecting that the Beneficiary has formal and on the job training in the following proprietary tools and concepts:

SKILLS/TOOLS LEARNED FORMAL ON THE JOB TRAINING TRAINING

LFM/laser scan integration into [1 week per] [3 months (516 Frameworks, Smart Plant Review, hours)] Staad, Staad Foundation, Descon Win, Mat 3D, spCol, ACI, ASCE, AISC, and IBC

3D modeling [1-3 months] [9 months (1550 software hours)] P&IDs, for electrical and j)iping [ 1 week to become [3 months (516 engineering productive] hours)l

Standard Operating [1 week] [1 year (2040 Procedures hours)]

IL Proprietary Systems [1 week introduction] [ 1 year (2040 hours)]

I -,

[1 week] [3-6 months] I [1 week] [3-6 months]

Furthermore, the Petitioner provided information on specific projects the Beneficiary had worked in the past while employed by the foreign entity. For instance, it stated that the Beneficiary was assigned to a workshare project at the' where he was "second in command to the Lead Civil Structural Engineer in India" and in which he gained "unique expertise" of workshare arrangements and civil engineering techniques and strategies at facilities. The Petitioner noted that this project was the largest workshare project it ever completed, that it was valued at $750 million, involved 29 engineers, and lasted three years. Likewise, the Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary was previously assigned to a project where he "worked directly with the Overall Lead and Civil and Structural Engineer and Workshare Coordinator" and where he was responsible for the engineering team in India. The Petitioner stated that the project was valued at $250 million, that 15 Indian engineers contributed, and that it lasted two years. In addition, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary also worked on three other similar workshare projects in North America and that on each he "utilized proprietary [company] tools and strategies."

The Petitioner provided explanations of the company's proprietary tools and processes. The Petitioner indicated that the company has standard operating procedures (SOPs) that "reflect the experiences [the company has] gained from decades of design and construction management." The Petitioner explained that the company's ' is an electronic document management system providing "a customizable and consistent set of online collaboration tools to the whole project team." The Petitioner explained that stands for' to

(b)(6)

Matter of J-E-G-Jnc. r

/'

Ensure Project Success" and that it involves "value-added tasks that must be considered during each phase of project development." The Petitioner stated that its

consist of 22 value-enhancing practices "designed to guide the client, the consultants and their subcontractors and ultimately the construction contractors through the course ofthe project."

The Petitioner submitted the company's Form 19-K Annual Report indicating that the core of its operation hinges on the use of internal tools such as and The Petitioner explained that its business model is utilizing "critical functions, such as project controls and procurements, [ ... ] embedded within each of our regions and [they] serve operations by providing specialized services required by projects." The form also stated that the business "is set up to foster · cooperation among teams and across our operating units." The Petitioner indicated that it utilizes a "multi-domestic" and "boundaryless" approach, coordinating resources all around the world. The form further stated that the company employs 49,900 individuals, "approximately 14,100 persons employed in the field on a project basis."

In denying the petition, the Director stated that the Petitioner did not provide documentary evidence to support its assertion that the Beneficiary's knowledge is special or advanced compared to professionals providing' similar services both within and outside the company. The Director found that the Petitioner did not articulate how the Beneficiary's training set him apart from his colleagues and noted that the Petitioner did not specify when his trainings were completed. The Director · further determined that the Petitioner did not specifically compare the Beneficiary against similarly placed professionals or colleagues. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not adequately explain the company's proprietary technologies and the Beneficiary's project-specific knowledge.

~

In its appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director's application of the law would make it "practically impossible" for any beneficiary to qualify as having specialized knowledge. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has specialized knowledge of the company's "workshare arrangements" and proprietary tools. It asserts that the Beneficiary will be the only engineer assigned to the project responsible for workshare coordination, making his knowledge advanced when compared to his colleagues based on his "extensive experience with workshare programs for similar projects, not widely held in the company." The Petitioner states that the support letters and assertions made under the penalty of perjury act as supporting evidence of the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge and "clearly demonstrate" that he qualifies for the requested benefit.

B. Analysis

Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of the appeal, we conclude the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D).

8


In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the b~nefit sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 3 76 (AAO 201 0). In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. !d. The director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true.

In order to establish eligibility, the petitioner must show that the individual will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The statutory definition of specialized knowledge at Section 214( c)(2)(B) of the Act is comprised of two equal but distinct subparts. First, an individual is considered to be employed in a capacity involving specialized knowledge if that person "has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets." Second, an individual is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge if that person "has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company." See also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). A petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the definition.

Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and type of evidence which establishes whether or not the beneficiary actually possesses specialized knowledge. USCIS cannot make a factual determination regarding the beneficiary's specialized knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of the its products and services or processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field involved, and the nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the beneficiary gained such knowledge.

As 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. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge, the petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. 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.

In the present case, the Petitioner's claim is primarily based on the second prong of the statutory definition, asserting that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of the company's workshare arrangements and its proprietary processes.

Because "advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, the Petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the Beneficiary has knowledge of or

9

(b)(6)


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. Such advanced knowledge must be supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others.

Alternatively, the Petitioner also suggests that the Beneficiary's knowledge is specialized within the industry. Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its application in international markets, 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.

The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of the company's "workshare" arrangements which are required for his U.S. position, in which he will be responsible for coordinating structural engineering work between three U.S.-based teams and a team of engineers based in India. The Petitioner appears to indicate that its workshare arrangements or practices are proprietary, but is does not describe in detail the nature of these arrangements, how many others in the company hold this knowledge, or how long it would take another to gain the knowledge needed for the U.S. assignment. The Petitioner compares the Beneficiary's workshare knowledge to his peers on his proposed U.S. project. However, the Petitioner's 10-K indicates that the company commonly uses offsho're labor and resources to complete its many projects and that it has over · 14,000 employees assigned to projects worldwide. In addition, the record reflects that the use of workshare arrangements among geographically dispersed teams of employees is common throughout the company, even showing that the Beneficiary was assigned to several other workshare projects in the past. The Petitioner does not explain how the Beneficiary's knowledge of workshare arrangements is greatly developed beyond that of his colleagues, how the knowledge itself is complex, or why it could not be readily transferred to similarly experienced engineers.

For instance, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary has knowledge of the Hindi language and cultural aspects of the Indian engineering profession, but does not explain how this knowledge would qualify as knowledge specific to the petitioning organization. While the Petitioner may prefer to have an Indian engineer onsite to coordinate with the overseas team, it has not provided sufficient information to establish that the knowledge required to liaise and coordinate with the Indian engineering team is special or advanced. The Petitioner does not articulate how many other workshare projects are ongoing or how many other engineers work on U.S. projects from India. Therefore, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of the company's workshare arrangements and practices.

In addition, the Petitioner suggests that the Beneficiary has advanced knowledge of the company's proprietary tools, such as the company's SOPs, its

and its However, again, the evidence submitted indicates that these proprietary practices and project management tools are widely used throughout the company. For instance, the Petitioner's 10-K references the use of these tools and processes when explaining the core of how it operates. As such,

10

(b)(6)


it is not clear from the information and evidence provided how the Beneficiary's knowledge of these widely used processes is greatly developed beyond that of his colleagues. Indeed, based on the · Petitioner's explanations and the evidence provided, the record suggests that knowledge of these proprietary processes would be a prerequisite to working on the company's engineering projects and not indicative of advanced knowledge. The Petitioner does not articulate how the Beneficiary's knowledge ofthese processes and procedures is set apart from those assigned to his project, let alone the more than 14,000 other employees working in the field for the company.

Moreover, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced based upon his specific knowledge of structural engineering techniques in the field and the projectspecific knowledge inherent to this specialty. Once again, the Petitioner does not specifically describe how the Beneficiary's knowledge of structural engineering in general or his knowledge of the facility project in particular is set apart from that of his colleagues. Although the Beneficiary's experience on other facility structural engineering projects appears to show that he is qualified for the offered position, the Petitioner does not discuss in detail how this level of experience compares to his colleagues. For instance, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary oversaw large teams of engineers in India on each of his projects in the past and that he will supervise 25 engineers while in the United States, but does not indicate how his knowledge is more advanced than those he has, and will, oversee. While we acknowledge that the Beneficiary has eight years of experience, the Petitioner states that his peers on this project have between 15 and 40 years of engineering experience in the same field. Otherwise, the Petitioner does not specifically compare the Beneficiary's industry knowledge to that possessed by other civil/structural engineers within the company.

Further, the same conclusion could be made with respect to the knowledge of specific structural locations the Petitioner states is critical to these structural projects. For example, one would reasonably assume that all the members of the project, and all structural engineering projects, have intimate knowledge of their specific client locations. In fact, the Petitioner suggests that prior knowledge of the facilities is necessary for the project. However, the Petitioner's work experience does not indicate that he has worked at the facility previously in order to gain this knowledge.

As noted, determining whether a given beneficiary 's knowledge is "special" or "advanced" · inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary' s knowledge to that held by other similarly employed workers in the industry and/or within the Petitioner's organization. In sum, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient and specific comparisons of the Beneficiary's knowledge against his colleagues as necessary to set apart his knowledge as greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and understanding in comparison to other workers in the employer's operations. In fact, given the nature of the company's business and its stated operations, it is reasonable to conclude, without specific evidence to the contrary, that there are many engineers who have knowledge of the company's workshare outsourcing practices, its proprietary processes and procedures, and the specifics of client locations:

11

(b)(6)


In the alternative, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's knowledge is specialized when compared to structural engineers similarly placed with the industry at large. It appears, based on the evidence provided, that the company has been engaged in several other projects involving structural engineering. The Petitioner generally states that it is "one of a few" companies capable of performing these engineering services. However, it does not identify these companies or discuss how its capabilities sets its engineers apart from other structural engineers or companies working in this industry, such that we could conclude that the knowledge required to work on this type of project is different or uncommon among civil and structural engineers.

Likewise, it is also reasonable to conclude that other engineering companies working on large projects utilize an onshore-offsite business model similar to the Petitioner's "workshare" model and have developed internal or proprietary processes anc! procedures to manage projects. The Petitioner does not describe how the Beneficiary's knowledge of the company's techniques and internal tools makes his knowledge distinct or uncommon when compared to other structural engineers working in the industry.

Moreover, the Petitioner did not fully respond to the Director's RFE leaving insufficient evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's asserted specialized knowledge. For instance, the Director requested in the RFE that the Petitioner provide specific evidence to corroborate the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge capacity, such as a complete organizational chart reflecting the names, titles, duties and salaries of each of the members of his direct organizational structure, the minimum time required to acquire the Beneficiary's knowledge, specific comparisons of the Beneficiary's knowledge to that of similarly-placed workers, reports or documents supporting his knowledge and experience, and contracts or statements of work substantiating the Beneficiary's assignments. However, the Petitioner has not submitted this evidence.

For instance, the Petitioner provided only a brief summary of duties and qualifications for other head engineers assigned to the project in the United States and has not provided any information related to the Beneficiary's Indian colleagues or specifically compared the Beneficiary to those similarly placed colleagues in India. The Petitioner did not articulate how long it would take another experienced engineer to reach the Beneficiary's level of knowledge, nor has it submitted other supporting documentation to substantiate his specialized knowledge. Therefore, although we concur with the Petitioner that support letters can be sufficient to establish specialized knowledge in some instances, it is the lack of responsiveness and specificity jn these letters that leads to their insufficiency. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14).

For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity with the Petitioner in the United States. See Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.

12


III. ONE YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY

The next issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary has at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii).

In denying the petition on this ground, the Director indicated that she had requested evidence from the Petitioner to substantiate his minimum one year of employment abroad, but that it did not submit any evidence in response to this request. In its appeal, the Petitioner states that its support letters are sufficient evidence to establish the Beneficiary's foreign employment and asserts that there is no evidence to leave his minimum of one year of foreign employment abroad in question.

Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has submitted adequate evidence to establish that the Beneficiary has more likely than not been employed with the foreign entity for at least one year out of the three preceding the filing of the petition. As such, the Director's decision as to this issue will be withdrawn.

IV. CONCLUSION

In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 136; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here the Petitioner has not met that burden.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter of J-E-G- Inc., ID# 22889. (AAO Oct. 28, 2016)

13

u.s. citizenship non-precedent decision of the o ' …...the petitioner, an engineering and...

Documents