Recently, California Service Center denied a non-immigrant petition of a case of L-1B. Non-precedential decision where the AAO sustained the L-1B appeal, finding that the petitioner established that a marketing specialist possessed specialized knowledge, and was employed previously and would be employed in a position, requiring that knowledge.

DISCUSSION: The Director California Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 0 ice (AAO) 011 appeal. The appeal will be sustained.

The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to cIassify the beneficiary as an L-l B nonimmigrant intra-company transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)8
U.S.C. S 01 (a)( 15)(L). The petitioner states that it operates a steel manufacturing business and seeks to extend the beneficiary's L-l B status so that he may continue to serve as a marketing specialist for a period of
two years.The director denied the petition concIuding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he has been employed abroad or would be employed in the United
States in a position requiring speciaIized knowledge.

1.THELAW
To estabIish eligibility for the L-l nonimmigrant visa classification the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Act.
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition fi!ed on Form I-129 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.

II. THE ISSUE ON APPEAL
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and whether the beneficiary has been employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a position that requires specialized knowledge.

The petitioner provided an organizational chart for the foreign entity illustrating that the beneficiary was the sole "marketing technical advisor." The petitioner explained that it was acquired as a U.S. subsidiary of the foreign entity in 2008 and its existing employees do not share the beneficiary's expertise with the international group's complex internal systems processes policies and methodologies. The petitioner's organizational chart illustrates that the beneficiary is the sole foreign worker assigned to the U.S. company. The petitioner emphasized that his presence is necessary to provide in-house expertise to the existing employees of the acquired company in the United States and to continue to align the petitioner's internal systems and best practices with those of its parent company.

The petitioner explains that there are a total of six marketing technical advisors within the company (worldwide) and the beneficiary is the only one familiar with the practices of the special steel operations abroad as well as the most experienced technical advisor in the company's marketing of special steels. Finally the petitioner explained that the proffered position requires the beneficiary's special knowledge and requires an advanced level of internal knowledge that is of significant complexity and can reasonably only be gained within the petitioner's group. The petitioner clearly demonstrated why the proposed assignment requires a marketing specialist with the specific experience and expertise that the beneficiary possesses due to the lack of employees experienced in the parent company's internal systems processes and methodologies.

For the reasons discussed above the evidence submitted establishes that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he has been employed abroad and will be employed in the United States in a position
requiring specialized knowledge. See Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Accordingly the appeal will be
sustained.

III.CONCLUSION
in visa petition proceedingsit is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act8 U.S.C. S 1361; Matter of Otiende26 1&N Dec. 127128 (BIA 2013). Here that burden has been met.

ORDER: The appeal is sustained.